hi4 



.;,;{t;;;;|S 659 

-i^'ili U6 
■ill 1914 
Copy 1 



IVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 

H. R. 7774 

A BILL TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF 

FISH OR PRODUCTS OR COMPOUNDS WHEN INTENDED 

TO BE USED FOR FERTILIZER OR OIL OR IN THE 

MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZER OR OIL 



FEBRUARY 18, 1914 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1914 






\'\ 



\^ 



cA^ 



COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

House of Representatives. 

WILLIAM C. ADAMSON, Georgia, Chairman. 



THETUS W. SIMS, Tennessee. 

3. HARRY COVINGTON, Maryland. 

WILLIAM A. CULLOP, Indiana. 

FRANK E. DOREMUS, Michigan. 

J. HENRY GOEKE, Ohio. 

GEORGE F. O'SHAUNESSY, Rhode Island. 

CHARLES A. TALCOTT, New Yorl£. 

DAN V. STEPHENS, Nebraska. 

RAYMOND B. STEVENS, New Hampshire. 

ALBEN W. BARKLEY, Kentucky. 



SAM RAYBURN, Texas. 
ANDREW J. MONTAGUE, Virginia. 
PERL D. DECKER, Missouri. 
FREDERICK C. STEVENS, Minnesota. 
JOHN J. ESCH, Wisconsin. 
JOSEPH R. KNOWLAND, California. 
EDWARD L. HAMILTON, Michigan. 
EBEN W. MARTIN, South Dakota. 
FRANK B. WILLIS, Ohio. 
A. W. LAFFERTY, Oregon. 



Wniis J. Davis, Clerk. 



D. 6F D 

JAN 14 1 



^ 






TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 



Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, February 18, 1914- 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. J. Harry Cov- 
ington (acting chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, A REPRE- 
SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARY- 
LAND. 

Mr. LiNTHiciiM. I desire to read to the committee and insert in 
the hearings the bill we have before us this morning, H. R. 7774. 
which is as follows: 

[H. R. 7774, Sixty-third Congress, first session.] 

A BILL To regulate the interstate transportation of fish or products or compounds thereof when intended 
to be used for fertilizer or oil or in the manufactute of fertilizer or oil. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House oj Representatives oj the United States oj America 
in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce into any State 
or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, or export or offer for export to any foreign country, any fish, parts 
of fish, or products or compounds composed in whole or in part of fish, intended to 
be used for fertilizer or oil, other than those commonly known and designated as 
menhadens (also known as pogies, fatbacks, and mossbunkers), sharks, dogfish, 
skates, rays, sea robins, and sculpins: Provided, however. That this act shall not re- 
strict the use of fish not herein excepted by any industry now established, or which 
hereafter may be established, when disposed of as by-product of such industry in- 
cidental to its principal business. 

Sec. 2. That whenever any fish, parts of fish or products or compounds composed 
in whole or in part of fish are used in the manufacture of fertilizer or oil, every unit 
of shipment of such fertilizer or oil so manufactured, before the same is shipped into 
any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory 
or the District of Columbia, or exported or offered for export to any foreign country, 
shall have securely attached thereto a label in the manner and form hereafter to be 
prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce, certifying that the contents of such unit 
of shipment contains no fish, parts of fish, or products or compounds composed in 
whole or in part of fish, except such as are permitted by this act to be used for fertilizer 
or oil. 

Sec. 3. That any person \dolating any pro\'ision of this act or any regulation made 
thereunder, or falsely labeling any unit of shipment for transportation hereunder, 
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not exceeding $200 or be imprisoned not 
exceeding one year for the first offense, and upon con\action for each subsec[uent 
offense not exceeding |500 or be imprisoned not exceeding tlu-ee years, or both, in the 
discretion of the court. 

Sec. 4. That the Secretary of Commerce shall make such rules and regulations as 
are necessary for can-jdng out the provisions of this act. 

Sec 5. That this act shall not become effective for industries now established and 
in operation in the Territory of Alaska until the last day of January, nineteen hundred 
and seventeen, but shall become immediately effective for any such industries here- 
after established. 

3 



4 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Before submitting for your consideration the statements of others, 
I wish to explain that tliis measure is intended to regulate the inter- 
state transportation of fish or products or compounds thereof when 
intended to be used for fertilizer or oil or in the manufacture of fer- 
tihzer or oil. The object of this bill is to discourage the turning of 
food fish into fertihzer or oil, and, through the interstate clause, to 
prohibit the transportation from one State to another of fertilizer or 
oil products or compounds composed in whole or in part of food fish. 

We are informed that great catches of fish which ought to be used 
as food fish are turned into fertilizer, and tliis bill is to prevent that. 
Now, the gentlemen in these menliaden fisheries interested in the fer- 
tilizer business contend that but few food fish are turned into fertilizer 
by them. We say, if that is the case, then there ought to be no 
objection to this bill; but we are informed, and we know quite con- 
clusively, that many food fish of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, 
])rincipally herring, for instance, are turned into fertihzer, and this bill 
would prohibit that. This bill, however, would not prohibit the turn- 
ing of any by-products into fertilizer. That is to say, where the fish 
is used by a packing house for food purposes the heads and tails and 
any other part of the fish, or the by-proclucts from those fish, could be 
turned into fertilizer or any disposition made of them they might wish 
to make, and tliis bill would not prevent it; but it will prevent the 
turning of any fish which are food fish mto fertilizer, thus destroying 
what the people ought to have to eat. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this statement about sums up the pur- 
pose of the bill. 

Mr. Montague. Have you any laws in Maryland to reach the same 
end prescribed in this bill? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. We have no laws in Maryland against the use of 
food fish for fertilizer because we have but one small fertilizer factory 
in our State, and there never has been any necessity for such laws. 
But boats come into our waters, purchase in great quantities good 
food fish from our fishermen and take them into Virginia — a part of 
which State I believe the gentleman has the honor to represent — and 
there they are turned into fertilizer. 

I have a statement here which I should like to incorporate in the 
hearing. It is by the Bureau of Fisheries, of the Department of 
Commerce, and shows the menhaden industry of the Atlantic coast 
in 1912. It shows that this business is developing into quite a 
tremendous industry. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 



o5 a 



s 


o 


CO 


« 


■*^ 


g 




u 


Qj 






o 


«j 






i 



~», m 






iz; 



= ^ 



■* o 



.§.g 



o "S fli 






00 lO 55 ^H -* O 

i-( Tp c^i 04 1* 00 

1-H OS tOCfl CO 



|.a 



CO no Oi'^lM C 



CNGO CN 



CJ OtH COf-H OS 
O t- COC400 



S? 



gs 

00 



^ CD C<» CO •- 



£ ■& 






o »o 1^ o ^ 

CO CV1 o o ^ 
'^ Ci O tM X) 

10 -^ O Tf ^ 

w CO Tf ^ 



(^^ ^ CO o:- O 
00 '^ GO t-- 10 



^ CO CO csi o 
r-» X) X" r- Tt* 
CO !>• o t^ OS 



CO "M CO CO »0 

l^ CO <N ^ 1— I 
n< CM CO 00 r-l 



.— I r-H GO 00 ;0 









»-5 -^ OJ 



c3 3 Sj3 o 



d a 



« fc. t 

OS! ~JS 

!-§« 

>.^ MM 

'-—'0 2 



" 9 « o 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 









— 


I-^ 


X 


»o 


•ifX 


tr- 





t^ 


CM 




^- 


-TCD 10 


10 










■^ (Mr^ 




OCDCMO 


-* 






5 0-. ^CM 


•0 








rt c-.o 




-* CM 




Oi 




c:> 01 f t- 






oi 






















_2 




M OC X 


c 


OJ 


o> 


02 




— c CMCO— • 








Ol^ IM 






10 


CO 




•oco 






"S 




O r-. 


s 






<M 




»0 10 CO 


CD 




> 






cJ 






CM 




— c w 


co" 
























3 










































o 






o o o 


o 


Q O O O 








CO 10 CO 05 






H 








IC 


5oo o 








XCO Oi 






H 




TO -*< O 


I^ 


oo oo 








CMXio 
































^ 




l^(M^ 


CO 


OO OCD 


CC 






— O'l^ 








B 






^. 


O CO lO ^ 








10 traco 










O (N CD 


a> ^ 








CD 








































•^ 








CO 








2^ 




i0 05T-l 


o 






















OT ^IM 


CO 








C 





CC 




gs^ 


l^ 










■<** 










»o 







Ci 


■C 


oi 






















05 CO 10 




3 


























S 




U; 00 -H 


ci; 












CC 




X -* X 


CM 


C3 


"3 























CO CO CM 


?3 


« 


> 


























.Scj 




























oS 




























































o o o 


o 










c 






C0"5O 












o 

















X CO CO 






t-^ 




lO O CD 












c 






CM -*CO 


































X! 




i>mm 


05 








CC 


CO 






CO 10 ^ 






o 


s 






a 
















I^ 






iz; 


3 




^'t^'f-T 


Tf 






















Z 




CO -^ 


X 




























CD ■'T O 


~ 


■^ 






•^ 


-*■ 




X —1 

















5 









CO 




•X'C) 




s 












■^ 






^ 


o- 




o>m 




CM 




D 






























I^ CO^ 










o~ 


-t 




cox 








"3 
> 




X t^ 










10 


c^ 




CI 




CO 






a, 
















TfCM 




CO 






m 






















2 






















































n 






















































-51 






o o o 

O lO o 


o 


o 













CO-O 








S-. 








o 













§^ 








> 


;-H* 




ooo 


c 


o 



















O) 




























^ 




rt oo 




o 












r^O 










a 




CM fO 


CO 














TJ. 












rf I^Ol 


o 








a- 






en 










3 




































Tf 






■* 
















•z 




I^ CO 


5 




























(N 00 O 


o 












g 




rt '^m 













CM 














co-^t^cs 


t^ 




a 






CM 












c> 




XI^- X t~ 
































■o 






cq CO ^ 


o; 












CO 




t^T-H X^ 




d 




« IOCS 


















■* 0: »o 




s 


> 




CM 














? 




CM —1 








m 
















































£2 ^ 






















































0^ c3 






C C'O 


















COCM^ C 






'->'S 






oc o 






















i-> 




OC CO o 


-* 
















CO 05 t^ 






^Q 








t^ 
















r-TcM-oT 






a> 


B 




























z 




OiiOO 


•? 
















0; 






3 
































OCX rH 


X 
























Z 




OCM-H 


^ 




























OJ'^CO 


o- 




XiO 


o- 


CM 




cDinx 





^ 






CO CO CO 


s 




CO CM 


s 


CC 




-H 10 ■<}< 




ai 




oooco 






IC 




CM CMO 


10 


a» 


_2 






















^ 




1^ l^ 










lo 




X XCD 


cm" 


cd 




Xr-. 


c 








c 




CO CO.-' 


CM 


■c 


> 




^ 


I-- 








p: 




X ■* 


CO 


a 






















•-H 


03 • 
























"^ 
























go 






QOO 

Ooo 


c 


"1 


QO 
O O 


c 






OCM CM 






•Bt« 






c 










gs;2 










oco^ 






OO 












s 



o 


0^ 
























^ 




X t^o 






oo 








CC C<I ':0 






B 




OO Oi 


a 




CO "3 








— c^ 








1^>0 -H 


■"r 












-,0 






3 




i^ToT 


i^ 












cc" 






O 


Z 




g 


co 










1 






















t: 


• ■ 








SS : 




















a o o c 








c 
















c/5 










-^^TS-C 
















© 




o 












c3 




















't^ 




S, 












b£ 






















60 

3 












=3 




































Q 






















i2 ts 



































^ 


IS 




3 
























I 






M > O 

|o^ 

SfiS 




■S, 


X- 








a 














^ 




a 

a 
2; 




_» 
d 


■3 














c 

ce 


. 










■3 


& 




C" 




-< 






c 


£ 
.^ 










X 


> o o 

•O 3 3 3 
C3 Js O O 




c/: t_ -rt CO ^ 

Scocococc 


c 


c 
c 


■< 




c 
c; 




'^ 

c 








EX4 


c- 


^ 










r^ 








<L> 












s >- c r: 










s 








O 

















c 


-^ 


L. 







TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 7 

In Virginia, for instance, we find that there were 471,000,421 men- 
haden bought, and the value of the fertilizer produced was $987,146, 
nearly $1,000,000 worth. But this measure does not seek to prohibit 
the catch or menhaden, although it is claimed by some that the 
industry being carried on to such a large extent is depriving many 
food fish of what they feed upon, as some food fish feed upon these 
menhaden and travel along in the schools with them. But we are 
not trying to prohibit that; that is an estabhshed industry and we 
are not endeavoring to do anything to its injury, but what we do 
want to protect is the food fish. 

Mr. Montague. Your bill, as I understand it, does nothing else 
but prevent the manufacture of food fish ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. It is to discourage the turning of food fish into 
fertilizer and oU. 

Mr. Montague. You prohibit food fish, and food fish alone, from 
being manufactured into fertihzer and oil ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Those alone, We have no desire to interfere with 
the use of other fish not generally used for food purposes. You wiU 
find that pogies, fatbacks, mossbunkers, which are but other names 
for the menhaden, are excepted, as are also sharks, dogfish, skates, 
rays, sea-robins, and sculpins. It does not interfere with the use of 
them. 

Mr. EscH. Is tlie fish oil as valuable to human kind as the meat 
itself? If so, ought it not to be barred by statute? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. We think you can get an abundance of fish oil 
from these other fish. These menhaden, known also as pogies, fat- 
backs, and mossbunkers, etc., are the ones which contain the greatest 
quantity of fish oil, and you can get an abundance of that from those 
without using the herring, which are splendid food fish and which 
our people have used for food purposes for many years. 

Mr. Covington. The second section of your bill provides the 
method of making elTective this proposed regulation, that the Secret- 
tary of Commerce shall attach to each unit of shipment a tag or other 
suitable method of designating the shipment as actually containing' 
no fish of that sort. How do you propose that that regulation shall 
be enforced ? 

Mr. LiNTHiciTM. I should rather that be answered by Dr. Smith, of 
the department, but my understanding is that it would be enforced 
by inspectors who will inspect the fish that come there, and see that 
there are no food fish used in those units intended for interstate 
shipment. 

Mr. Covington. But, for example, suppose that these fish are 
located in Virginia and that they take fish that are caught within 
the waters of Virginia and also fish caught within the waters of 
Maryland, and after the product has been entirely converted from 
fish into fertilizer, how do you think that is going to be affected by 
the fact they are required to attach a certificate or tag to an article 
that is about to enter into interstate commerce, under those cir- 
cumstances ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Do I understand the chairman to mean that if 
fish, both food fish and other fish, are caught in the waters of Virginia — 
in the absolute State waters of Virginia — and also in the State waters 
of Maryland; how do I propose to regulate that? 

Mr. Covington. Yes, sir. 



8 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER, 

Mr. IjINTIIICUM. If there are food fish contained among them ? 

Mf. Covington. What method would you propose to pursue? 

Mr. IjINTHICUM. I would propose througli a corps of inspectors 
under the department, that those fish shall not be sliipped except — 
that that fertilizer shall not be shipped into any other State. If the 
State allows its food fish to be caught and turned into fertilizer, 
destroying the conservation which we are endeavoring so strongly to 
build up, if any State allows that under its laws, then we propose, 
under this law, to prohibit them shipping it into other States, and 
thereby to narrow their market, and in that way to the extent of our 
means deterring them from the wrongful use of the food fish of the 
people. 

I want to bring that point out very distinctly. You must recog- 
nize that we can not enter into any State to regulate its laws, but we 
contend that no State ought to expect this Government to lend its 
hand to the shipment of fertilizer manufactured out of food fish, even 
though such fish come out of the waters of tliat particular State. 

Now, I understand that some contend that the use of food fish for 
fertiUzer and oil purposes does not affect the food-fish market. In 
answer to that I want to introduce into the hearing a letter I received 
from a gentleman, now a member of the House of Delegates of 
Maryland, and, may I say, from the district of the gentleman from 
Maryland, Mr. Covington, I believe — lie can answer that. 

Annapolis, January 26, 1914- 
Hon. Charles J. Linthicum. 

Dear Sir: I have noted witli interest the many letters in the open-letter column of 
the Baltimore Sun the last six months concerning the fish question in Maryland. 

Furthermore, I have read the bills you have introduced in Congress, and, after 
giving them careful consideration, I feel that if passed and become laws they will 
be a great protection to our food fish 

In reference to the herring that are being disposed of for fertilizer, I, a member 
of the Sherwood Packing Co for the past few years, have been placed in a position to 
take more interest than I would otherwise have taken. Our business of the past year, 
like many others, was a very short pack compared with previous years. Fish were 
very scarce. We had several freight boats searching for herring in the Chesa- 
peake Bay. About April 20 we received word there was a run on at Turkey Point. 
I chartered a boat and went the next day and to my surprise found 18 or 20 steamers 
loading for fertilizer factories. I offered 50 cents per thousand more than they were 
paying and had to leave without a fish. This made a great impression on me, and I 
felt something must be done to protect our food fish and feel that your bill means as 
much for the fisherman as the packers. In fact, I have talked with quite a number 
of the fishermen themselves and find that they are in sympathy with the two bills. 
Yours, truly, 

Robert S. Harrison, 

House oj Delegates. 

Mr. Linthicum. He uses the word "good" fish here. I think he 
means the word "food" fish. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Do you happen to know why he could not get 
the fish when he offered 50 cents a thousand more for them ? 

Mr. Linthicum. I had a talk with Mr. Harrison and I put that very 
question to him. He said the reason given him was that they had 
been in the habit of deahng willi the fertilizer people and as they had 
plenty of boats there they could sell to them at all times, and they 
did not care to break up their trade with these people by selling the 
fish to others. 

Mr. Montague. What sort of fish were these? 

Mr. Linthicum. These were hei'ring. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 9 

Mr. Montague. You said Turkey Point. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Turkey Point. 

Mr. Montague. Where is that ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. That is up near the Susquehanna, just below the 
mouth of the Susquehanna River. 

I want to say further that I had a talk with Mr. Harrison several 
days ago when I was in Annapohs, and he told me not only were they 
selling these fish to the fertihzer people cheaper, but they were selling 
them by the tub, and whereas a tub is supposed to contain 1,000 fish, 
yet as a rule they contam somewhere around 1,300 to 1,500 fish, and 
lor the price they were selhng to the fertilizer people the fertilizer 
people were getting some 1,200 or 1,300 fish for 1,000, yet he could 
not buy any fish there, and there was vessel after vessel loading to 
carry the fish to the factories of Vu'ginia. 

Mr. EscH. Have you another bill? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EscH. What is the number. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. H. R. 7775. 

Mr. EscH. Was that the bill referred to this committee? 
■ Mr. LiNTHicuM. That is not before this committee. That is be- 
fore the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, that regu- 
lates the catching of fish mainly, in what manner they should be 
caught, and the season. 

In connection with Dr. Smith's reference to the sturgeons I want 
to introduce into the hearing at this point "The story of the stur- 
geons" as he gave it to me. I call attention to this article because it 
carries with it a valuable lessojt, foreshadowing the ultimate extinc- 
tion of other species of food fish if we continue to permit their wanton 
destruction: 

THE STORY OF THE STURGEONS. 

[By Hugh M. Smith, United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.) 

The story of the sturgeons is one of the most distressing in the whole history of the 
American fisheries. These large, inoffensive fishes of our seaboards, coast rivers, and 
interior waters were for years considered to be not only valueless, but nuisances, and 
whenever they became entangled in the fishermen's nets they were knocked in the 
head or otherwise mortally wounded and thrown back into the water. I have seen 
the shores of the Potomac River in the vicinity of Mount Vernon lined with the de- 
composing carcasses of these magnificent fishes, witnesses to the cruelty, stujjidity, 
and profligacy of man, and the same thing has been observed everywhere in our 
country. 

The next chapter in the story was the awakening of the fishermen to the fact that 
the eggs of the sturgeons had value as caviar and that the flesh had value as food. 
Then followed the most reckless, senseless fishing imaginable, with the result that in 
a comparatively few years the best and most productive waters were depleted, and 
what should have been made a permanent fishery of great profit was destroyed. Even 
after the great value of the sturgeon began to be appreciated by everyone no adequate 
steps were taken by the responsible authorities or insisted on by the fishermen, and 
the fieh-eating public remained callous. 

For a long time after the failure in the fishery had begun and was apparent to every- 
one the immature and unmarketable fish incidentally caught in seines, gill nets, and 
pound nets received no protection whatever in most waters, and were ruthlessly 
destroyed as nuisances, the decline thus being doubly accelerated. 

On the Atlantic coast the catch of the sturgeon fell from 7,000,000 pounds to less 
than 1,000,000 in 15 years; on the Pacific coast the same meteoric history was enacted, 
a catch of over 3,000,000 pounds annually in the early nineties being followed by a 
few hundred thousand pounds in later years of the same decade, with no improvement 
since that time, while on the Great Lakes the yield declined more than 90 per cent in 
18 years. In the American waters of the Lake of the Woods, one of the most recent 



.0 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 



grounds for the exploitation of the sturgeon, the catch decreased over 96 per cent in 
10 years, notwithstanding a more active prosecution of the fishing. 

The approximate sturgeon catch of the entire country at 10-year intervals, beginning 
in 1880, is shown in the following diagrams: 

Approximate sturgeon catch of the United States. 



Pounds. 


1880 


1890 


1900 


1910 


1,000,000 
2,000,000 
3,000,000 
4,000,000 
5,000,000 
6,000,000 
7,000,000 
8,000,000 
9,000,000 
10,000,000 
11,000,000 
12,000,000 
13,000,000 
14,000,000 










1 


1 



Everywhere there is a steady downward trend in the catch. Some rivers that 
formerly supported a flourishing fishery are now absolutely depleted. The scarcity 
of the sturgeon and the demand for their flesh and eggs have run up the price to an 
extraordinary figure, never attained by any other fish, either in America or anywhere 
else. A mature female sturgeon often brings the fisherman more than a hundred and 
fifty dollars, and it is a poor fish that can not be sold for twenty to thirty dollars on 
the rivers of the east coast. 

The most serious aspect of the sturgeon fishery is that, owing to the decimation of 
the schools of breeding fish and to peculiarities in spawning habits, it has been impos- 
sible as yet to inaugurate sturgeon culture anywhere in America. Attempts at arti- 
ficial propagation have proved utter failures on the Great Lakes, Lake of the "Woods, 
Lake Champlain, Delaware River, and other waters, and the expenditure of con- 
siderable sums of money by the Federal Government has sometimes failed to yield 
a single batch of eggs suitable for incubation. 

Everywhere in America, under existing conditions, the sturgeons are doomed to 
commercial extinction, and it requires no prophet to foresee that in a comparatively 
few years sturgeons will be as scarce as the dodo. 

What is demanded in every State in which these fishes exist or have existed is 
absolute prohibition of capture or sale for a long term of years, certainly not less than 
10. Any less radical treatment would be only trifling with the situation. 

For the information of the committee I desire to insert in this 
hearing the following communication from Mr. P. H. Pemberton, 
secretary of the fishermen's association at Mathias Point, Va. It 
reflects the attitude of the fishermen toward the proposed legislation: 

Mathias Point, Va., July 9, 191S. 
Hon. Charles Linthicum: 

Dear Sir: At the last meeting of the fishermen's association; also the farmers' club, 
it was agreed without a dissenting voice to ask you to have all fishing rights taken 
out of the hands of Virginia and Maryland and vested in the control of the National 
Government, as both States only use the right to build up some political fence with- 
out any regards to the food supply of fish. Our National Government is the right party 
to control all rivers, creeks, and bays, as she has to hatch fish and keep these rivers 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 11 

dredged out. We are sorry to say it, but we have not a man in Congress from tide- 
water Virgiana but we believe is connected with those fish factories, and that is why 
we all turn to you. The farmers of Maryland and Virginia are with the fishermen, heart 
and soul. As the price of salt fish is going up every year, the bay fishermen, who fish 
for those guano factories, do not care how high fish go to, and they will not let herring 
and shad get to fresh water. If you can put all fishing rights under the National 
Government control you will do more for the common people than any man has ever 
done before, and ninety-five out of every hundred men would call you friend. 

P. H. Pemberton, 
Secretary Fishermen^ s Association. 

This letter from Mr. J. E. Hall, of Westmoreland County, Va., 
secretary of some farmers' association, indicates how widespread is 
the belief that remedial legislation can be secured only through 
Federal control: 

Westmoreland County, Va., July 31, 1913. 
Hon. J. Cha.s. Linthicum. 

Dear Sir: The farmers' meeting to-day of 400 (397) voted to ask you to have the 
United States Government to take entire charge of all the fishing rights. 

The whole people are disgusted with the way the States are doin?. Let the National 
Government havo the whole power over all fishing rights. If left in the hands of 
the States, fish will soon be a thing of the past. No one is against Government owuer- 
ehip except those who are in the fish Guano Trust. 

J. E. Hall, Secretary. 

The accompanying letter from Mr. Harry A. Slattery, secretary of 
the National Conservation Association, tells of the interest of that 
association in this measure. I had hoped to have before this com- 
mittee the president of the association, Mr. Gifford Pinchot, but 
owing to death in Mr. Pinchot's family I understand that he will 
be unable to appear and give the committee the benefit of his knowl- 
edge of the subject. 

National Conversation Association, 

Washington, D. C, October 29, 1913. 
Hon. J. Charles Linthicum, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Linthicum: Your letter of October 22, with copies of proposed bill and 
your admirable speech on the "Protection of our food fish" are received. I shall 
hope to get in touch with you at an early date to discuss the proposed legislation. 
We have been interested in this question for some time and belie\e that legislation 
to prohibit the use of food fish as a fertilizer is one of the most vital features of the 
conversation and protection of our fisheries. 
Sincerely, yours, 

Harry A. Slattery. 

Tne following letter from Mr. G. W. Williams, of Port Deposit, Md., 
is offered merely for the purpose of showing the attiti de tov ard this 
measure of those who possess a practical knoAv ledge of the sul ject: 

Port Deposit, Md., February 9, 1914- 
Hon. J. Chas. Linthicum. 

Dear Sir: In the spring of 1913 in the upper part of Elk River the fishermen did 
nothing, as when herring are scarce they don't get only in the mouth of the river, 
but always quite a large quantity of white and yellow perch, and the fishermen 
shipped tons of them by steamer to Virginia to be ground up into fertilizer. 

I believe in State rights, but if the State fails to act, then the Government should. 
It was a curse to allow pound nets to have ever been set in the United States. I 
fished a hauling seine before there was a pound net and have fished pound nets ever 
since 1876 and paid as much as |250 rent for a season. 

I have seen our rock fish, white perch, also white catfish gradually disappear; also, 
yellow perch, until there are none except what are hatched, and they are caught before 
they are big enough to market only as fertilizer. 

I also hope you will succeed in shortening the season for shad and herring to the 
1st of June in each year and not allow any fishing until the 1st of October in each 



12 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOE FEETILIZEE. 

year. The cat fishermen during the months of June and July catch small fish, which, 
when skinned, it takes as many as 16 to make a pound. If the Congress is going to 
act, it should before this season opens up, as it will save millions of our herring and 
be the means of our farmers getting fish to eat. 
Yours, very truly, 

G. W. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF MK. TALBOTT DENMEAD, 213 ST. PAUL 
STREET, BALTIMORE, MD. 

Mr. Denmead. I represent the Maryland State Game and Fish 
Protective Association. I have been an official in the Maryland 
Game and Fish Protective Association in one capacity or another for 
about seven or eight years, and being an ardent fisherman I have had 
opportunity to study this question from one viewpoint in our Chesa- 
peake Bay. Of course, my references will be confined to a gre^ t extent 
to the conditions on Chesapeake Bay, but I think the conditions on 
the Chesapeake ?re pretty much the same as the}^ are in any of the 
vStates that border on or vrhere the waters pass through any two 
States. 

There is no question, gentlemen, and I do not thhik any of the 
people will deny, that food fish are used in the State of Maryland for 
fertilizer, and by food fish I do not mean entirely herring. Of course, 
there is a great demand on the part of the fishermen in Maryland to 
use the herring. I think the gentlemen will claim that herring are not 
entirely a food fish. I disagree with them there. I think herring 
should he, protected. But they can not also deny that these scow 
loads of fish, shipped from Maryland to the Virginia fertilizer fac- 
tories, not only contain herring, but also contain our small white 
perch and small j^ellov^ perch, hardly out of the State hatcheries. We 
natch these fish out of the State and Government hatcheries for these 
gentlemen to turn into fertilizer. That certainly is not right. There 
is no question that they do it. 

Mr. Covington. Have you any reliable statistics showing the pro- 
portion of the so-called fry ? I believe that is the term applied to 
them. 

Mr. Denmead. You mean perch, etc. ? 

Mr. Covington. Was the fry distributed by the Maryland State 
fisheries or by the United States Bureau of Fisheries ? 

Mr. Denmead. I can not say. Probably both. The system is 
this: The Virginia people send their boats to the head of our bay at 
intervals of, maybe, two or three weeks, and in the meantime the 
fishermen put all the fish which they can not sell or use into scows. 
You can smell them or see them any time you go there. And those 
scows contain, if you examine them, not only herring, but white 
perch and yellow perch. One scow may contain a few and another 
scow may contain none. There are fishermen there who are violently 
opposed to white and yellow perch being used for fertilizer, although 
they may do so legally and honestly; and it is impossible for me to 
state how many fish of that description go to the Virginia fertilizer 
factories. 

I requested the Baltimore News to send a man to the flats of 
Havre de Grace last summer and investigate the situation for them- 
selves, and the News published a very lengthy article — a column and 
a half — on that subject, and they said that they saw evidences of 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF EISH FOR FERTILIZER. 13 

at least 5,00,') GOO having gone to the Virginia fertilizer factories in 
the season of 1912, and at that time — about the middle of May — 
over a million herring had already been shipped to Virginia for use 
in the fertilizer factories; also many perch and other food fish. 

Of course, that contmues every season in which the herring run, 
and I am speaking more particularly of the herring, because there is 
always a glut of herring at the head of the bay in the run. 

Mr. Montague. What do you mean by that? 

Mr. Denmead. You can not keep the fish from going up the rivers 
to spawn, and they accumulate in large masses at the head of the bay, 
and at such times it is impossible for these gentlemen to use those 
herring for food fish. I admit that, but at the same time that this 
glut is taking place at the head of Chesapeake Bay, there are men 
who have nets in our large rivers who can not get herring enough to 
supply their own tables, and that is caused by the fact that practically 
every river in Maryland is stopped up at the mouth with a string of 
pound nets, and the herring which come up the bay simply can not 
get up these rivers. They finally push up until they get to the head 
of the bay, and that causes the glut. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Have you no State legislation regulating that ? 

Mr. Denmead. We have to a certain extent. I am sorry to say 
we are far behind in the matter of fish protective legislation. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Are the people opposed to it? Can you not 
get it ? 

Mr. Denmead We are trying to get those things We have no 
law prohibiting the use of food nsh for fertilizer. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. But you are trying to get it? 

Mr. Denmead. Yes, sir; I filed a bill last year 

Mr. Covington. Is not the situation in regard to the shad fisheries 
partly due to those long pound nets ? 

IVIr. Denmead. They are after every shad they can get, and the 
shad question is a very serious one. 

Mr. Covington. But the herring are blocked as an incident to the 
immense shad fisheries ? 

^li\ Denmead. They take the herring into these pound nets as 
well as the shad. 

Mi\ Covington. But the shad are the cause of the blocking in the 
mouths of the rivers. There are pretty stringent regulations in regard 
to the shad fishing ? The very nature of the shad fishing, through re- 
quiring the use of longer hedging, as they call it 

M . Denmead. The hedging should be regulated. Of course, the 
shad would go up the Patuxent River to spawn, if permitted, but 
the nets are so thick and extend so far out into the bay that the shad 
have either got to go into those nets, or go up to the head of the bay. 
The nets are there, and the fish want to get up the river. 

Mr. Montague. Let me ask you one question. Do you use the 
word ''blocking" ? 

Mr. Covington. That is the word I used. 

Mr. Denmead. Blocking the mouths of the rivers. 

Mr. Montague. By these pound nets? 

Mr. Denmead. By these long nets. 

IVIr. Montague. You mean, to obstruct the river? 

Mr. Denmead. That is it, exactly. These long nets extend out 
below the mouth of the river so that the fish coming up the bay can 



14 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

not get into the river. Of course, the fishermen's argument along 
that Mne is if steamboats can get up this river, why can not the her- 
ring, but the herring has not charted those nets; the nets are fixed 
to stop him, so he must either go into the nets or go by them. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Is the supply of herring diminishing in the bay ? 

Mr. Denmead. Yes, sir; there is no question about that. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Because they can not get to their spawning 
grounds ? 

Mr. Denmead. I have not got the figures. Our friend, Dr. Smith, 
has; but the shad industry in Maryland and the shad industry in 
other waters is decreasing. I have a clipping in my pocket in regard 
to the shad industry on the Hudson. I did not take up the question 
of shad, because that is a food fish; it does not enter into the question 
of fertilizer. You can get more for shad as roe shad than for fer- 
tilizer. I understand the shad industry is dead, absolutely, in the 
Hudson River; no more shad go up the Hudson River, and every 
year fewer shad come up our bay. 

Mr. Covington. Keep on with your explanation with regard to 
the conditions at the head of the bay. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. May I say right there, as a suggestion to the wit- 
ness, that so far as tlie shad industry in Maryland and Virginia is 
concerned, for the last 12 years it has diminished from 12,000,000 
pounds to 2,000,000 pounds. 

Mr. Denmead. I presume that is a very conservative estimate, 
but I did not care to quote the figures from memory. Also I have 
gone over the figures in regard to herring; but where there were 
5,000,000 herring used in the season of 1913 

Mr. Montague (interposing). Before you leave that subject as 
to the constant falling off of the supply of shad or herring — do you 
not have this blocking process on the ocean at the mouths of your 
bays? 

Mr. Denmead. At the mouth of Chesapeake Bay ? That is in 
Virginia waters, and I am not quite as familiar with just what they 
do as I am with the upper waters. 

Mr. Montague. Do you have these pound nets all up and down 
the coast ? 

Mr. Denmead. Yes; but we do not have so many of them along 
the coast in the ocean; they will not stand it to any great extent 
there. 

Mr. Montague. If you take the steamer at New York and ride to 
Norfolk, Va., you will see them all along the coast. 

Mr. Denmead. Yes; but I do not think they stop the fish coming 
in the mouth of the bay. I am not exactly familiar with the Vir- 
ginia laws in regard to that, but I understand they are more strict 
in regard to their pound nets than we are, and our pound nets are 
just one after the other all the way up the bay. I think that is one 
reason why these herring are glutted at the head of the bay, and 
why they are used as fertilizer. 

It seems to me that the use of herring for fertihzer should not be 
allowed. Tliis gentleman over here [indicating] suggested whether oil 
was not more valuable than the fish as a food. I think the highest 
utility to which any food fish can be put is for use as food. Tliere 
are plenty of oils on the market ; there are plenty of fish oils, and some 
of these fish factories in Virginia pay 100 per cent on their capital 



TO PKEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 15 

from fish they get out of the ocean, and there are plenty there, plenty 
of sharks and things of that sort that they can get for their oil, and 
the herring should not be allowed to be used for oil. 

Mr. Rayburn. Do such fish make as good grades of oil? 

Mr. Denmead. I am not prepared to say. I am not an oil expert. 
I do not know exactly what the quality of these oils is. Of course, 
this is good oil. The menhaden and the herring are both of the same 
family and I presume the oil is about the same. The principle fish 
is the menhaden, and they — the boats — follow the shore of the ocean. 
The Virginia fertilizer factories not only get them from Maryland, but 
all the way up the coast to the Banks. They are not after any food 
fish. They do not use any food fish of that sort; I do not think they 
catch many, but they purchase them from the head of the bay ; pur- 
chase our food fish and use them in fertihzer factories. The men- 
haden that come up the bay are smaller than the menhaden you get 
at the mouth. Ex-Senator Dennis has a large fish factory at Cris- 
field, and they fish around there, but I do not think they come very 
much farther up the bay for menhaden. These boats do not come 
up the bay to catch fish; they come up to buy them. 

We have in Maryland about 10,000 fishermen who make their living 
catchmg fish. We have a population of over 1,000,000 in our State, 
and I think we should legislate for the protection and benefit of the 
people of Maryland and not entirely for the benefit of the 10,000 
fishermen. I come in contact with these fishermen. I like them. 
They have always been nice to me, and I do not care to interfere at 
all with their business. They have a right to their living, but these 
fish they catch they do not sow. They only reap. They are fish 
which b'^long to the million people, and I respectfully submit that 
food is the highest utiUty to which these fish can be put, and I think 
that this bill of Congressman Linthicum's will probably prevent a 
certain amount of these food fish of ours going into use as fertilizer. 

I am told that the State of Virginia is going to pass a law at this 
session — they have already decided upon it — to prohibit the use of 
herring, which use they now allow, for fertilizer, so that, of course, 
will protect Maryland against itself, because th<ui these gentlemen 
will not be allowed to sell herring for the use of the Virginia fertilizer 
factories. Virginia now permits the sale of herring to the fertilizer 
factory, but prohibits the purse netter from catching them for such 
purpose. 

I think this is about all I wish to say. Maryland is trying to pro- 
tect these fish the best it can. We cannot do so. Virginia and Mary- 
land have always been scrapping about Chesapeake Bay, which they 
jointly own, and I think that a bill which will protect these fish the 
way this bill does would be of very great advantage to this fish indus- 
try. I thank you very much. 

Mr. Covington. How about the sale and manufacture for fertilizer 
of the herrings that are stripped for the production of the roe ? 

Mr. Denmead. And the balance of the herring is used for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Covington. Yes. 

Mr. Denmead. I think they had better use it for fertUizer in our 
own State than throw it away. 

Mr. Covington. It is a fact, is it not, that the most valuable com- 
mercial part of the herring is the roe, which is put in the cans ? 



16 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Mr. Denmead. Yes, we have two or three factories in Maryland 
which simply can the roe. 

Mr. Covington. Very large quantities of it ? 

Mr. Denmead. Yes, and then they sell the refuse to the fertilizer 
men. 

Mr. EscH. It would be difficult, would it not, to distinguish the 
oil of the menhaden from the oil of the herring ? 

JVIr. Denmead. I could not tell you that. 

Mr. EscH. It goes to the practical operation of your law. A fac- 
tory or a fertilizer plant may put oil on the market from these two 
species. Now menhaden is aU right. The oil from the herring you 
want to prohibit? 

JVIr. Denmead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EscH. How are you going to determine that when it gets into 
the channels of interstate trade ? 

IVIr. Denmead. I do not know. I do not think it would be possi- 
ble to tell, under present arrangements, because they use every 
available fish. I thmk they just put the loads of mixed fish together 
and turn them into oil or fertilizer. I do not think they separate 
the different kinds of fish at all. 

Mr. EscH. As soon as it becomes oil it would be impossible to dis 
tinguish ? 

Mr. Denmead. So far as I know you are absolutely correct on that. 

Mr. EscH. Therefore the enforcement of the law would have to 
depend on inspection at the source ? 

Mr. Denmead. It would be of absolutely no value unless you 
could prevent the fish being used at the source, and after they were 
turned into oil it would not do the fish any good. I think it should 
be stopped by inspectors right at the source. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. What is the chemical element of fish which is 
desirable for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Denmead. I do not know. The menhaden is a very greasy 
fish. You can handle it and see it is greasy, and the herring is of the 
same family. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. You do not know whether it is phosphorus or 
nitrogen or what makes it desirable for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Denmead. I do not. 

Mr. Covington. Do you not think a large part of this matter 
ought to be regulated b}^ more effective legislation by the Legislature 
of Maryland ? 

Mr. Denmead. Yes; we should unquestionably have a law in 
Maryland which prohibits the use of food fish for fertilizer, and our 
State laws in regard to nets are very imperfect and we must have 
that rectified ; but if the United States would give us a start on this 
thing we may be able to tell our legislature in a practical way what 
they should do. 

Mr. Covington. But if the State of Maryland would take that step 
and the State of Virginia take that step, would not the practical 
effect be that the entire use of herring for fertilizer in Chesapeake 
Bay would be stopped ? 

Mr. Denmead. If every State would do the same thing and place 
the same laws uniformly on their statute books, we could control 
that matter; but the States will not do it. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 17 

Mr. Covington. I am speaking now of the industry as it would be 
affected in Chesapeake Bay. Could not the legislatures of the two 
States of Virginia and Maryland pass laws that would be ample to 
solve the whole problem ? 

Mr. Denmead. No; I do not believe they could. They could pass 
the laws, but they would not be able to stop interstate commerce. I 
think this legislation is absolutely necessary in addition to our State 
legislation. 

Mr. Covington. You would not have to stop interstate commerce ? 

Mr. Denmead. No, sir; if the Legislature of Maryland would 
prohibit the use of food fish for fertilizer and enforce it; but the 
State of Maryland has not enforced its laws which they have on 
their books, and we have not passed any such law at present. And 
the same question arises, if I may go into the situation, that we had 
in regard to migratory birds, in regard to which Congress passed a 
law a short time ago. Certain States protect their fish and certain 
States do not. These fish migrate from State to State. These 
menhaden come up through Virginia into Maryland, and I think it 
is an interstate matter, and I think the United States Government 
should take a hand, as they have in the bird bill. That is the way 
it appeals to me. 

Mr. EscH. There is very little oil extracted from the herrings, ia 
there not ? 

Mr. Denmead. Sufficient for them to pay $2 a barrel for them for 
the fertilizer factory. 

Mr. EscH. Their principal use would be for fertilizer. It would 
be just as difficult to determine whether food fish like herring were 
used for fertilizer as to determine whether a food fish was used in 
making an oil, would it not ? 

Mr. Denmead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EscH. And it would have to be determined through inspection 
not on the product in interstate commerce but at the factory ? 

Mr. Denmead. I should say where the fish were obtained, not at 
the factory. That would be the place where we, as an association 
interested in the conservation of fish, would like to see all the laws 
enforced, where the fish are caught, so those desirable fish could be 
turned back into the water. 

Mr. Rayburn. Where could you tell where a fish was going ? 

Mr. Denmead. We can tell in a way. If the fish are caught at the 
head of the bay and throwai into scows and lay there in a rotten con- 
dition for two weeks, we know where they are going. They are 
going into a fertilizer factory. If the fish were to be used in the 
market as food they would be shipped very quickly to the market. 
They would not be allowed to stay around very long. 

Mr. Covington. You do not pretend that there would be a pre- 
sumption that fish caught at the head of Chesapeake Bay were going 
down into the fertilizer factories, and that therefore Federal inspec- 
tion could be made on the chance that they might get into interstate 
commerce ? 

Mr. Denmead. I have not gone into the question of the enforce- 
ment of this law, but it seems to me it Avould not be necessary to 
investigate every load of fish, but if there was a general trend to 
violate the law, why it would be up to the inspector to find out tha"; 

43049—14 2 



18 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

at the source, not at the factory. I do not believe he could ever 
find it out at the factory. 

Mr. Covington. You \\all have the opportunity to correct and 
revise the remarks you have made. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Before you ])ut another witness on the stand, 
I should like to say apropos of your suggestion that Maryland and 
Virginia agri>e on a law in regard to food fish, that from the time of 
George Washington down to two years ago Maryland and Virginia 
have tried to get together on the oyster question in the Potomac 
River, and only last year did agree upon a law, after over 100 years 
trying to get together on the oyster question. And they never would 
have got togetner even then were it not for the fact that the oysters 
are all practically gone from the bottoms of the Potomac Kiver. 
I do not suppose they would ever have gotten together if there had 
been any oysters left. 

I want to ask Dr. vSmith of the Bureau of Fisheries to speak to you 
a few minutes and answer any questions you may have to ask. 

STATEMENT OF DR. H. M. SMITH, COMMISSIONER OF 
FISHERIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. We are considering H. R. 7774, and I have pro- 
duced as a part of the hearing the statement issued by the Bureau of 
Fisheries as to the menhaden industry. I would like to have you tell 
the chairman and gentlemen of the committee what you know about 
the fertihzer industry and the ultimate effect of the use by that indus- 
try of food fish in the manufacture of their products. 

Dr. Smith. I have no argument of any kind to make. I should 
just like to say that I am familiar with the provisions of this bill. I 
think the bill will have a beneficial effect; it will correct some abuses 
which now exist, and prevent the occurrence of abuses hereafter; and, 
in my opinion, it will disturb no existing industry of a legitimate 
nature. 

Our interest in this matter in the Bureau of Fisheries arises from 
the fact that we do not like to see any fish or other water product 
that is suitable for human food diverted, and, furthermore, we do not 
think we are justified in maintaining hatcheries on Chesapeake Bay, 
or anywhere else, for the propagation of food fish which are going to 
be caught in an immature state and converted into oil and fertilizer. 

Mr. Covington. I will ask you to answer the question I asked Mr, 
Denmead. What is your information as to the extent of the so-called 
fry fish, the young fish you turn loose, which are now caught and used 
in the fertilizer factories ? 

Dr. Smith. The only case to which I could refer with any degree of 
certainty is that at the head of Chesapeake Bay, where stationary 
apparatus catches a very large quantity of small perch of two species, 
which fish are being artificially propagated at the hatchery which we 
maintain in that same region. 

Mr. Covington. Are you not maintaining a fish hatchery at the 
mouth of the Susquehanna River — a Government hatchery ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. It has been there for many years; and 
recently, at the request of the fishing interests, we have extended the 
operations, which were formerly confined to shad and striped bass, to 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 19 

white perch and yellow perch, which are very desirable minor food 
fishes. 

Mr. EscH. You do not propagate the herring? 

Dr. Smith. It has not, up to this time, been necessary to propagate 
the herring. The spawning habits of the herring are decidedly in its 
favor. The eggs are of a pecuHar nature, and even when the ripe fish 
have been caught and are retained in a pound net or gill net the eggs 
will attach themselves to the netting and are there often incubated 
and hatched out quite as successfully, perhaps, as we could undertake 
in the hatcheries. 

Mr. EscH. Nature is very kind. 

Ml-. Willis. Before you complete your statement, would you care 
to make a statement in reference to food fish used as fertilizer taken 
from the waters of Alaska ? I remember we had a discussion of that 
in the House a year or two ago. Probably this committee would like 
to hear some statement in regard to that. 

Dr. Smith. The principal abuse in Alaska is of long standing and is 
confined to the herring. It is not the herring of Chesapeake Bay, 
but the sea herring, which is similar to the sea herring of the North 
Atlantic. That herring industry in Alaska, however, has been 
recognized as legitimate up to this time. Certain people went to a 
remote part of the territory, established their works at great expense, 
and have been utilizing the herring. They could not find a market 
for them in that region, or in any other part of iUaska at that time. 

Mr. Willis. Is that an edible fish ? 

Dr. Smith. It i"^ a highly edible fish. It is one of the most valuable 
df all the food fishes. In fact, the herring of that species and the 
herring of the North Atlantic are the most valuable fish in the whole 
world. 

Mr. W^iLLis. I asked you that question because in a hearing before 
the Committee on Territories a number of gentlemen appeared and 
undertook to tell the committee that those fish were of no account 
as food fish. I wanted your expert opinion. 

Dr. Smith. Practically the identical fish brings $10,000,000 a year 
to the Scotch fishermen. This fish supports enormous fleets and thou- 
sand of fishermen all over western Europe. 

Mr. W^iLLis. Information was also brought to us that other kinds 
of fish, the salmon and others, which are undoubtedly food fish, 
were taken and 

Mr. Covington. I expect we should not go too far into this Alaska 
situation, because there are a number of gentlemen to be heard. 

Mr. Willis. Then the bill takes hi other fish industries as well as 
those on Chesapeake Bay. 

Ml-. Covington. I misunderstood the gentleman. 

Mr. Willis. It takes in all within the scope of this bill. Do you 
know to what extent salmon and other fish were taken ? They say 
that all that came to their nets were herring; they did not make any 
distinction whatever; they all went into fertilizer. 

Dr. Smith. In this Alaska fishery practically the only fish taken 
are herring. The salmon are too valuable to be converted into oil 
an el fertilizer, an el we have no mformation that this is gomg on. 

Mr. Hamilton. What are the spawning habits of the Chesapeake 
herring ? 



20 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Dr. Smith. Tlicre are two species of hcrrmg in the Chesapeake of 
somewhat diffcniit appearance and spawning habits. These fish are 
improperly calktl herring. They are alewives, or river herring. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. Are the Chesapeake herring confined exclu- 
sively to Chesapeake Bay? 

Dr. Smith. The Chesapeake herrhig ]-ange from Florida to the 
Canadian Provinces. 

Mr. D. V. Stevens. It is not the same, is it, as the North Atlantic 
herring ? 

Dr. Smith. It is an entu-ely different fish from the herring of the 
North Atlantic, which does not run into fresli water at all, while the 
alewife or Chesapeake Bay herring, and the herring of tlie eastern 
rivers, are migratory fish which spawn in fresh water. They come up 
in the spring. One species appears a little in advance of the shad, 
and the other with the shad or following the shad. They have dif- 
ferent spawning gi'ounds, but for all practical purposes they are iden- 
tical, even to the fishermen themselves. In many places the fisher- 
men do not distinguish between the two species. 

Mr. Hamilton. Have they the habit of returning to the parent 
stream or to the place where they spawn ? 

Dr. Smith. I think that is true of all migratory fishes of that 
character; not perhaps because they have any instinct of nativity, 
but because the parent stream is the one they are most likely to go 
into. After their winter sojourn in the sea, they are more likely to 
be attracted by the fresh water coming out of the parent stream than 
from any other stream. 

Mr. Hamilton. The Alaska salmon is said to have an instinct. 
I think you used the term, "instinct of nativity," did you not? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mi-. Hamilton. It is said to have that instinct; it is said that it 
goes back by almost infallible instinct to the parent stream. You 
say these migratory fish have that same instinct, although not so 
largely developed ? 

Dr. Smith. I think it is very highly developed, but I would not 
ascribe to the fishes any higher order of intelligence than is possessed 
by human beings. 

Mr. Hamilton. You are talking about instinct, not intelligence? 

Dr. Smith. Instinct is intelUgence in human beings. 

Mr. Hamilton. That would be starting a psychological discussion, 

Mr. Covington. What have you to say about the practicability 
of the enforcement of the provisions in this act ? 

Dr. Smith. I think, Mr. Covington, the bill would have to be 
enforced through inspection of the fertilizer plants. I fail to see 
how the product could be recognized after it entered into commerce. 

Mr. Covington. How many inspectors would that take throughout 
the United States ? 

Dr. Smith. There are 75 or 100 plants of this kind, but many of 
them are bunched. There may be half a dozen on one small body 
of water. 

Mr. Knowland. Are there many of them on the Pacific coast? 

Dr. Smith. There is only one fertilizer plant for food fishes upon 
the Pacific coast. 

Mr. Knowland. Where is that located ? 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 21 

Dr. Smith. That is located at Killisnoo in Alaska, and I might 
say that legislation pending in the Senate has taken cognizance of 
this sacrifice of herring in Alaska, and a bill that has been tentatively 
agreed upon by the Senate committee permits that plant to close out 
after a certain number of years, 

IVlr. Covington. Was that the reason for fixing the date of Janu- 
ary 31, 1917, in this act, as the last day that fish should be caught 
for that purpose ? 

Dr. Smith. That is my impression. 

Mr. Hamilton. Doctor, do these fish spawn more than once a 
year ? 

Dr. Smith. Only once a year, and perhaps not every year. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do the fishermen have a habit of intercepting 
these fish on the return to the spawning places ? Is it a part of their 
policy to do that? 

Dr. Smith. The fishing for these migratory fishes is prosecuted 
only on their return to the spawning ground. 

Air. Hamilton. Then, they take advantage of this custom we are 
talking about to catch these fish when they return to spawn, as is 
the case with the catch of Alaska salmon ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Willis. Can you give the committee any information as to 
the amount of revenue or rental, so called, tliat th<> Government of 
the United States receives from this Alaska fertilizer company for 
the consumption of fish '^ 

Dr. Smith. It is published annually in our report, but I would 
not be able to give it to you offhand. It is not a very large income, 
however. 

Mr. Willis. You do not recall the amount of fish they take for 
that purpose ? 

Dr. Smith. I could not give it from memory. 

Mr. Willis. Wh(^n you got those figures, insert them in your 
report. 

Mr. Montague. You spoke of the two classes of lierring. You say, 
for instance, that which is called herring in Chesapeake Bay some 
of the other witnesses here said was not herring, but it was an alewife. 

Dr. Smith. That is what I said. 

Mr. Montague. Is that the herring we usually call Potomac 
herring ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Montague. It is an alewife, then. Is the herring in the 
North Atlantic a larger fish or a smaller fish than this i 

Dr. Smith. It averages a little larger than the river herring or ale- 
wife. In Chesapeake Bay and other southern waters the confusion 
of names is accentuated by calling the alewife herring and the men- 
haden alewife 

Mr. Montague. Sometimes we call them bug-heads and fat-backs ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; and there are about 30 other common names for 
this one fish, the menhaden. 

Mr. Montague. Is the north Atlantic herring as full of bones as 
the alewife ? , 

Dr. Smith. All the herrings are notorious for their boniness. 

Mr. Montague. Is the sardine a herring^ 



22 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Dr. Smith. The sardine is one kind of herring. It belongs to the 
herring famUy. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. Did I understand you correctly about the her- 
ring industry up in Alaska? Did you say it was sacrificed now? 
You spoke about the revenue that Scotland derived from the herring 
industry of $10,000,000 a year. 

Dr. Smith. A least $10,000,000 a year, and the other countries 
of western Europe around the North Sea get as much more — perhaps 
twice as much more. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. Tell us what you can in a brief way about the 
herring industry in Alaska. You say it is sacrificed. In what way ? 

Dr. Smith. I said the herring itself was being sacrificed for oil and 
fertilizer, when it might be prepared for human food. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. That would be more profitable to Alaska? 

Dr. Smith. It wiU from now on be more profitable. It would not 
have been more profitable at the time the herring industry was estab- 
Ushed in Alaska, because there was no local or export demand for that 
kind of fish. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. But it can be made a source of great profit to 
Alaska, can it? 

Dr. Smith. Undoubtedly. Alaska can be depended upon to sup- 
port a herring fishery perhaps more valuable than that of any other 
country. I should not be at aU surprised if by the introduction of 
the same methods that are followed in western Europe, and to some 
extent in Newfoundland and in our own Eastern States, an industry 
worth $5,000,000 might be developed there. 

Mr. Talcott. Doctor, how long lias that hei-ring work been going 
on in Alaska ? 

Dr. Smith. At least 15 years and perhaps longer. The amount of 
money that has been invested in the plant is considerable, and it was 
thought only fair to let the people gradually drop out so as not to 
sacrifice their investement. 

Mr. Talcott. That plant has been conducted for about 15 years? 

Dr. Smith. It has been in existence for at least that long. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Are there not many herrings brought down from 
Newfoundland to our country and sold ? 

Dr. Smith. There is a very large fishery carried on by Massachu- 
setts vessels in winter. Sometimes a fleet of 30 or more vessels goes 
to the treaty shores of Newfoundland, and at the end of the fishing 
season the fish are brought down in either a frozen or a salted con- 
dition. These fish enter into our food supply. 

Mr. Covington. Does that conclude your statement. Doctor? 

Mr. Willis. Just a moment 

Mr. Linthicum. I want to say that I think this is a matter of great 
importance, and we do not like to hurry through it. 

Mr. Covington. I asked the doctor whether he had concluded 
his statement. 

Mr. Linthicum. I understood the chairman to say I was to pro- 
duce my witnesses, and we would have full time to put this matter 
before you. It is of very great importance. 

Mr. Covington. The committee, though, has to reserve to itself 
the right to determine whether a man has finished his statement or 
not. If the doctor has not finished, he may go on at length. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 23 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I was about to ask the doctor something in refer- 
ence to the blueback. 

Mr. Covington. As a matter of fact, I have to state that the 
practice of this committee has always been for the man to make his 
statement, and at the conchision of it if there are any questions that 
it is desired to ask that may be done. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Questions have been asked all along. I took it 
that I would be afforded the same privileges of which the other gen- 
tlemen have availed themselves. 

Mr. Covington. You will, but I wanted him to finish his con- 
nected statement first, because that is the only way we can handle it. 

Go ahead. Doctor, and finish your statement. Then Mr. Linthi- 
cum, or any member of the committee, can ask an}' questions they 
care to ask. 

Dr. Smith. I thought it might be of some interest to the members 
of the committee and to those who are interested in this matter to 
know the real food value or market value of these alewives or herring 
in Chesapeake Bay. Witliin a few days I have made some inquiries, 
of a practical fisherman in Maryland, and he tells me that these ale- 
wives, such as are being caught in Chesapeake Bay and its tributa- 
ries, when cut by the removal of their head and viscera, are worth $6^ 
a barrel as the average retail price; these fish run about 650 to 700 to. 
a barrel. The herring, which are salted whole, as is a rather common 
practice, the scales simply being removed by a stirring process, are 
worth from $3.50 to $4 a barrel to the fishermen — 400 fish to the 
barrel. Fresh herring sold on the shores where they are caught in 
seines or otherwise, mostly to farmers who come down there from the 
surrounding country to get their winter fish supply, bring from S4 to 
$5 a thousand on an average. 

At Washington ami Alexandx'ia, on the Potomac River, where a 
considerable quantity of herring is sold in bulk to salters, the price 
received is .$2.50 to $3.50 per thousand. Early in the season, at the 
city markets here, from $5 to SIO per thousand is received by the 
fishermen for these herring from tlie Potomac River: but later, when 
the catch becomes larger, the price drops to $2.50 to $3 a thousand 
in bulk. 

The retail prices to the consumer at the wliarves in Washington are 
$5 to $10 per thousand, and about 10 to 12 fish would make an 
average meal for an average family. 

That is all I have to say. 

Mr. IjINIHicum. Doctor, I merely want to ask you two questions^ 
Congressman Ganhier, of ^lassachusetts, has an amendment he desires 
to submit to the committee this afternoon, if tlie committee is in 
session, excluding bluebacks. as he calls them. Will you kindly tell 
the committee wiiat kind of fish that is? 

Dr. Smith. The blueback is one of these same herring that run in 
Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Is it an edible fish? 

Dr. Smith. It is a highly edible fish, and is eaten in Mr. Gardner's 
own State, and also throughout New England after it gets into tlie 
rivers. 

Mr. IjINTHICUM. There is one other question I want to ask you. 
That is in reference to the catcli of shad. WiU vou not introduce 



24 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER, 

that [producing a paper] into tlie hearing so as to have some record 
of it ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. This appears to be a memorandum that I sent 
to the Secretary of Commerce under date of July 15, 1913, calling 
attention to the fact: — shall I read it? 

Mr. IjInthicum. You had better read it. 

Dr. Smith. It reads: 

[Memorandum for the Secretary.] 

Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, July 15, 1913. 
We have just received from Neitzey Bros., old and experienced fishermen of the 
Potomac River, a comparative statement of the catch of shad and herring in their 
haul seine at Ferry Landing, Va., for a period of five years ending in 1913. The fig- 
ures are so suggestive and so confirmatory of the position of the department that I 
think you will be interested. 





Year. 


Number of fish taken. 




Shad. 


Herring. 


1909... . 


9,000 

4,200 

1,450 

900 

700 


1,400,000 


1910 


517,000 


1911 


310,000 


1912 


145,000 


1913 


60,000 







The seine used in this fishery is 1,200 fathoms long, and requires 45 men and two 
steam engines to operate it. The entire catch of the two seasons of 1912 and 1913 
was not more than one day's catch in former years. 

H. M. Smith, Commissioner. 

That is, the number of shad caught dropped from 9,000 in 1909 to 
700 in 1913. The number of herring dropped from 1,400,000 in 1909 
to 60,000 in 1913. The entire catch of the two seasons of 1912 and 
1913 was not more than one day's catch in former years. 

Mr. Montague. That was an experiment made, was it not? 

Dr. Smith. No; that is an established fishery. That seine has 
been hauled there for about 75 years. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. That is proof that there is a decimation of the 
herring due to these practices you want prevented ? 

Dr. Smith. I would not have you understand that we are claiming 
that the decrease in the supply of shad and herring in the tributaries 
of Chesapeake Bay is due to the use of those fish for fertiUzer. It is 
due to inefficient protective laws. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. Where ? In Maryland ? 

Dr. Smith. In Maryland and Virginia. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. How long have you been trying to get better 
laws in Maryland ? 

Dr. Smith. Ever since I have been in the Bureau of Fisheries — - 
about 30 years. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. What is the trouble, are the fishermen stronger 
than the people ? 

Dr. Smith. The fishermen are the people. 

Mr. EscH. Have you records of the catch of shad and herring in 
Chesap;^ake Bay? 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 25 

Dr. Smith. We have, for a long series of years, going back at least 
as far as 1880, and possibly to 1870. 

Mr. EscH. Does that record show a gradual diminution ( 

Dr. Smith. The history of the shad fishery in this region is very 
interesting. About the year 1880 there was some such condition as 
is now existing, the supply of fish falling off to such an extent that 
the abandonment of the fishery was seriously contemplated. About 
that time Congress directed the establishment of shad hatcheries on 
these streams, and there was some improvement in the legislation, 
and there was an almost imm<^diate response on the part of the fish; 
so that by 1885, and from then on for a number of years, the catch 
was perhaps larger than in any recent time; but for at least 10 or 
15 years there has been a steady decrease in the run of shad and 
herring and other migratory fishes in Chesapeake Bay and tributaries. 

Mr. Hamilton. After you established the hatcheries, did the fish- 
ermen increase their means of catching the fish, so as to keep pace 
with the increase of fish, so that the result was a decrease of the 
supply of these fish ? 

Dr. Smith. Twenty years ago there were not to exceed 1 ,000 
pound nets between Washington and the mouth of Chesapeake Bay 
on the Virginia side. Last season there were probably 4,000 such 
nets, some of them extending in unbroken lines for 7 or 8 miles from 
shore. 

Mr. Hamit ton. Have you any recommendations to make as to 
what sort of law there should be passed, or whether the Federal 
Government can intervene to protect the people against the reduc- 
tion of the food supply by the destruction of fish ? 

Dr. Smith. I have had numerous conferences on this subject with 
the Secretary of Commerce under whom this matter would come. 
He is very loath to undertake Federal control over the fisheries in 
State waters, and he would undertake it only out of a sense of re- 
sponsibility to the people and cf duty to the industry. We do not 
see how governmental interference can be indefinitely deferred if 
the States are going to remain apart, as have Maryland and Vir- 
ginia in Chesapeake Bay; Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey 
in the Delaware Basin ; and Washington and Oregon in the Columbia 
River Basin. Some kind of governmental control is apparently 
going to be imperatively demanded unless the States do differently 
from what they have in the past. They have either been unable 
to get together and stay together, or they are indifferent. 

Mr. Covington. Doctor, since you have adverted to that subject 
of diminution of the fish supply, if it has not been due to their de- 
struction by fertilizer factories, what has the immense diminution 
of the shad and herring been due to ? 

Dr. Smith. The undue destruction of migratory fish on their way 
to spawning ground. 

Mr. Montague. The shad are not used in the factories at all for 
fertilizer, are they? 

Dr. Smith. I have never seen any shad used for that purpose. 
They have too a high a value in the market. 

Mr. Hamilton. Can you state to the committee the constitutional 
grounds upon which you advise Federal regulation and control ? 

Dr. Smith. The apparent inability of the States to enter into any 
permanent agreement for the conservation of a product that does 



26 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER, 



not belong to the States but is the property of the whole country, 
and it is not within the jurisdiction of any State during the greater 
part of the year. 

Mr. Hamilton. I simply wanted to get that into the record. 

Mr. Willis. Doctor, before you finish I want to make a suggestion. 
A httle while ago I asked a question which was rather unfair as to the 
number of milhon pounds of fish taken out of Alaskan waters by the 
Alaska fertiMzer comj^any, and the royalty or rental that the Govern- 
ment received from those. Will you kindly, when you revise your 
testimony, put tha in so that we will have it in our hearing ? 

Dr. Smith. I will do so. 



Operations of Alaska Oil & Guano Co. at Killisnoo, Alaska, for years 1912 and 1913. 



Year. 


Catch of 
herring. 


Oil product. 


Fertilizer product. 


Herring salted for 
bait. 


Herring for food. 


Due 

Govern- 
ment 

for tax. 


1912 


Pounds. 

11,140,000 

112,654,000 


Gallons. 
235,000 
260,000 


Value. 
S51,700 
52,000 


Pounds. 
2,580,000 
2,400,000 


Value. 
$38,700 
33,000 


Pounds. 
160,000 
400,000 


Value. 

SI, 600 

4,000 


Pounds. 


Value. 


1728 


1913 


112,000 


$4,200 


760 



■ Approximate. 

Mr. Montague. I should like to ask you a question in regard to a 
very interesting example you gave of a certain fishery. You said 
the number of fish had fallen off so much. 

Dr. Smith. This was a seine fishery on the Potomac River below 
Washington. 

Mr. Montague. You gave the actual number of fish. 

Dr. Smith. Yes; the actual number. 

Mr. Montague. Did you count those fish? 

Dr. Smith. The fish are counted at the fishing shore. The shad 
are so valuable that they are counted by hand. The herring are 
measured; the fishermen know liow many go in a barrel or tub. 

Mr. Montague. You approximate the herring by measurement, 
but the shad are actually counted ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. The fish are sold by count. Even the 
herring, which are brought up to the city in bulk, in bins, or in the 
holds of vessels, are sold by count at so much per thousand. 

Mr. Montague. In this particular fishery did they send any of 
their herring into the fertilizer industry ? 

Dr. Smith. I have no information on that subject, but as there are 
no fertilizer plants very near Washington, and as the price of these 
fish is so high, I am inclined to believe that all of them come to the 
market. 

Mr. MoNTAGLTE. How far from Washington is this particular net? 

Dr. Smith. It is about 17 miles — just below Mount Vernon. 

Mr. Montague. I desire to ask you one further question. What 
effect upon the supply of the fish have the pound nets, seines, and 
other fishing appliances along the Atlantic coast had ? 

Dr. Smith. That is a prettv broad question, sir, because you are 
dealing with so manv kinds of fish that e.re subject to different condi- 
tions. There are certain fish that are caught in enormous quantities 
on the Atlantic coast in pounds and other nets whose supply remains 



TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FEETILIZER. 27 

unimpaired, SO far as we can see, fish like the bluei'ish, which spr^wn 
offshore 

Mr. Montague. Doctor, any inan who lishes lor sport, who handles 
a line or rod, knows that he can not now catch fish m Chesapeake 
Bay and its tributaries to anything like the amount he could catch 
20 or 30 years a^o. Take the trout— -when you catch them in the sea 
what do you call them ? 

Dr. Smith. Weakfish is the proper name. 

Mr. Montague. Take the blue5sh, take the spot, take the hogfish, 
or take any kmd of fish in Chesapeake Bay, and the amount of catch 
now that anv expert fisherman can make with liis hands is insignificant 
as compared with what it was 20 or 30 years ago. To what do you 
attribute that? 

Dr. Smith. I have no doubt in the world that Chesapeake Bay is 
overfished. I think the whole history of the fisheiy in recent years 
goes to indicate that more fish are being caught than the stock can 
stand.- 

Mr. Montague. North of Cape Charles and south of Cape Henry 
you find these pounds, I think you call them, extending out in the 
ocean 3 or 4 miles, 2 or 3 miles, and a mile, just above and just below 
the Capes ? 

Dr. Smith. I have been to such pounds. 

Mr. Montague. You have seen them, have you not? 

Dr. Smith. I know of their extent and their location. 

Mr. Montague. The fish are struggling to come within the Capes 
at certain seasons of the year ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. Montague. What effect do these pounds have upon the sup- 
ply? 

Dr. Smith. They are set for the purpose of intercepting the schools 
of fish that are bound into Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. Montague. They successfully do that work, do they not? 

Dr. Smith. They are exceedingly effective. The pound net is 
the latest thing in fishing apparatus. 

Mr. Montague. Those fish are food fish in the main ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, and they are used for such purposes. 

Mr. Montague. Do they not injure and kill innumerable quanti- 
ties of fish so small that they would not be shipped for food supply ? 

Dr. Smith. All kinds of net fishing are more or less destructive 
of the young. An apparatus has not been devised which will take 
simply the marketable fish. We have been solicitous about the 
destruction of the small fish in the pound nets, seines, and the other 
apparatus around Chesapeake Bay and off the mouth of the bay. 

Mr. Montague. I asked the question not to divert the inquiries 
and observation of the department from the bay, but to ascertain, 
if you can scientifically, what effect the outside fishing apparatus — 
the coast fishing — may have upon the destruction of fish. 

Dr. Smith. The decline of the shad fisheries in the rivers around 
Chesapeake Bay is undoubtedly due to the great multiphcation of 
the fishing apparatus in salt water. 

Mr. Montague. In the bay or outside of thf, bay, or both? 

Dr. Smith. Both, and in 'the estuaries and in the lower courses 
of the streams, with the rtsult that in somt streams possibly 90 ptr 
cent of the run of spawning fish is intercepted before the spawning 



28 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

grounds are reached. Of course under such circumstances the fish 
hatcheries are of no good whatever. Fish hatcheries can not operate 
unless they get eggs for hatching purposes. That is what we have 
been prevented from doing in the fish hatcheries in the Chesapeake 
Bay region. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are these pounds that Mr. Montague referred to 
planted there for the purpose of intercepting the fish on their way 
to the spawning ground ? 

Dr. Smith. Absolutely. 

Mr. Hamilton. All the fish they catch under those conditions 
are stopped on their way to spawn, and they prevent, then, the repro- 
duction of the fish to the extent that they catch these fish ? 

Dr. Smith. That is the fact. 

Mr. EscH. That would be within the jurisdiction of the States? 

Dr. Smith. Undoubtedly, ^ir. 

Mr. Hamilton. It would also be within the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Government, would it not ? 

Dr. Smith. Only to the extent that these fixed forms of apparatus 
interfere with navigation. The War Department, through the 
Engineer Corps, is going to be busy in Chesapeake Bay and its tribu- 
taries the coming season insuring the opening up of ways for naviga- 
tion which will also be ways for the spawning fish bound to the head- 
waters. The work in behalf of the fish is only incidental, however. 

Mr. Talcott. In the case of these salt-water nets would not the 
Government have jurisdiction outside of low water mark? 

Dr. Smith. The Government has never exercised such jurisdiction, 
and as these nets are attached to the bottom I think they would come 
within the jurisdiction of the State. They do extend for long dis- 
tances from shore, as Mr. Montague has said. There are some below 
Cape Henry that go out at least a mile. 

Mr. Covington. Are they not exercising all the supervision they 
can constitutionally exercise when they seek to establish regulations 
through the War Department as to placing those pounds and other 
nets in the water to an extent that would obstruct navigation ? 

Dr. Smith. That appears to be the only jurisdiction that the 
Federal Government can exercise at the present time. 

Mr. Covington. They are now exercising it to the limit of their 
constitutional jurisdiction by placing obstructions at the limits of the 
navigable waters ? 

Dr. Smith. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Esch. When you revise your testimony, will you add the 
statistics of your office showing the catch of herring in Chesapeake 
Bay since 1880? 

Dr. Smith. Yes; for as many years as we have statistics. 

Mr. Esch. If you can go back of that, that will be much better. 

Dr. Smith. I will do that if we have the figures. 

I would not like to create the impression that I think this net 
fishing in Chesapeake Bay or anywhere else is improper. All that it 
needs is regulation, and on several occasions we have notified the 
State people that if they would be willing to let only 10 per cent of 
the spawning shad that they capture every year go by and reach 
the headwaters, the supply could be maintained. It is a very small 
thing to ask. All the fish need is a fair chance. 



TO PREVEXT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 29 

Alewife catch of Maryland and Virginia/or a term of years. 



Year. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


Year. 


Pounds. 


Value. 


1880 


16,129,372 

, 15,463,905 

i 17,964,779 

30,408,692 

i 28,432,335 

30,011,962 


$215,967 
118,858 
150,660 
235,467 
225, 150 
190,064 


1897 


30,828,969 
27,660,601 
29,088,836 
66,690,000 
51,447,280 


$194, 294 


1887 


1901 


206, 732 
228, 715 


1888 


1904 


1890 


1908 


328,000 
284,039 


1891 


1909 


1896 







Mr. O'Shaunessy. That was in the nature of a request, was it not? 
What did they say to that ? 

Dr. Smith. Actions speak louder than words. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. They are indifferent? 

Dr. Smith. The laws have not been materially changed, and the 
conditions have become more aggravated, so that more and more 
fish are being killed every year in Chesapeake Bay, and also in other 
waters, before they reach the spawning grounds, and unless the 
spawning grounds are reached by a fair percentage of the run each 
year the supply is bound to decUne and ultimately disappear. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. That is a very big proposition. 

Mr. Covington. Doctor, the provision in this bill exempting the sale 
of fertilizer or oil produced from the by-products — is that intended 
to be broad enough to reserve the right to sell the herring that 
remain after the extraction of the roe therefrom and the roe is pre- 
pared for food purposes ? 

Dr. Smith. I would not think that such herring should be con- 
verted into fertilizer. The shad, after the roe has been extracted, 
is a marketable food fish. The herring is a similar fish. 

Mr. Covington. As an entirely practical proposition, if the herring- 
roe industry is a large commercial industry and the packer of herring 
roe can get jio market for the herring after the roe is stripped from 
it, would you say that should be thrown away rather than used for 
fertilizer or commercial purposes ? 

Dr. Smith. I think the roe should be regarded as the by-product, 
and not the herring. 

Mr. Covington. The roe should be regarded as the by-product? 

Dr. Smith. Certainly. 

Mr. Covington. Do you think that language would so regard the 
roe as the by-product, when that is the principal part of the in- 
dustry and not the incident of it? 

Dr. Smith. The fish itself is the principal part of the industry, 
except in certain isolated places. 

Mr. Covington. As a matter of fact, it is in those regions a very 
large industry — a large quantity of herring roe is now being canned, 
is it not ? 

Dr. Smith. The industry has attained a considerable importance 
in certain restricted localities. 

Mr. Covington. And in those localities the principal business is 
the canning of the herring roe itself, and the fish itself is merely the 
by-product. 

Dr. Smith. That is the way they so regard it, but I think that is 
improper. In the case of various other fishes of which the roe is 



30 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOE FEETILIZER. 

saved, the roe is the secondary product. The fish themselves are 
utilized in a proper way. 

Mr. Covington. This section is not broad enough to permit the 
sale of the herring after the roe is stripped from it for canning pur- 
poses ? 

Dr. Smith. I did not construe it to permit the sale of the fish for 
fertilizer. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. May I ask the doctor just one question: Doctor, 
was not that same contention made with regard to the use of the roe 
of the sturgeon ? They use the roe of the sturgeon for Russian caviar. 
What became of that ? 

Dr. Smith. That is a similar case. Twenty years ago the fishermen 
generally on the Great Lakes, along the Atlantic coast, and in the 
Columbia River had a realization that the eggs of the sturgeon had 
a great market value. 

Mr. O'Shaunessy. How many years ago ? 

Dr. Smith. Just a moment — they began a very active fishery 
which had for its object the saving of the roe, while the fish were often 
thrown away or regarded as a subsidiary product. In a very few 
years the sturgeon ceased to be present in sufficient numbers to 
support any kind of fishery. In the Columbia River the sturgeon 
was wiped out in about three years by this very roe business, and 
now the sturgeon is so scarce everywhere that it has become easily 
the most valuable fish in our waters. 

Mr. Willis. Whether we consider the fish or the roe the by- 
product, is it not a fact that tMs roe industry is extremely destruc- 
tive, so far as the fisheries of the country are concerned ? 

Dr. Smith. I should say it is very wasteful if the fish are caught 
exclusively for the purpose of sa\dng their roe. 

Mr. Willis. Even if they are caught for any purpose at that par- 
ticular time when they are about to spawn, it seems to me would be 
extremely destructive. Is it not a fact — I am asking purely for infor- 
mation — that the roe industry is extremely destructive, so far as the 
fisheries of the country are concerned, whether we regard the roe as 
the main product or as the by-product ? 

Dr. Smith. As I stated a while ago, these fishes, like the shad, the 
herring, the salmon, and the sturgeon, are caught only during the 
time when they are in roe. They are running into waters where 
they can be caught at that particular season. They must be taken 
then or not at all. 

Mr. Covington. Mr. Linthicum, have you any other questions? 

Mr. Linthicum. No. I want Dr. B. Holly Smith, the president of 
the Maryland State Game and Fish Association, to make a few 
remarks. 

STATEMENT OF DR. B. HOLLY SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE 
MARYLAND STATE GAME AND FISH ASSOCIATION, 1007 MAD- 
ISON AVENUE, BALTIMORE, MD. 

Mr. Covington. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. Smith. I do what I please. If you are going to put me down 
for any particular occupation, I will say that I practice medicine 
and dentistry, and a few other things. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been greatly edified especially by the tech- 
•nical information that I have received from my namesake. I am 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 31 

only here in a sense as a figurehead, as the president of the Maryland 
State Game and Fish Association. 

We have recollections of the days in the past when Maryland was 
looked upon with envious eyes by all the world where the connois- 
seur of all gastronomies lifted his hat and oiled his lips with compli- 
ments to us. That day is fast passing away until now there are 
perhaps none so poor as to do us honor. Our game fish and our 
game birds, especially our game fish, are butchered not to make a 
Roman holiday, but just a little mess of dung, and we protest. I 
thank you. 

Mr. Montague. You spoke of the diminution of your fish supply. 
You suggested it rather, did you not ? 
Mr. Smith. I intimated it. 

Mr. Montague. Well, intimated it. You arc willing to affirm it. 
That is a fact, is it not ? 
Mr. Smith. I think I can. 

Mr. Montague. To what do you attribute the falling off of the 
supply in the diamond-l)ack terrapin that you said made the lips of 
connoisseurs water ? 

Mr. Smith. I know three negroes that have farms that are worth 
now S8,000 or $10,000 apiece, that have poled diamond-back terra- 
pins out of the marshes of my State until there is not another diamond- 
back terrapin left. 

Mr. Montague. You mean they overfish it? 
Mr. Smith. It is overfished. 

Mr. Escii. Doctor, what has your association done in Maryland to 
secure legislation that would protect your fish ? 

Mr. Smith. Enough to make it unpopular with all legislators. We 
have sought and sought and begged and begged, with small profit. 
We have done a great deal. We have had local laws, but now we 
are seeking, and I think perhaps now we have some prospect of 
securing uniform laws regarding the taking of game. We mtroduced 
mesh laws, but we have not succeeded in doing anything. We have 
arrested 30 or 40 men in Baltimore for having small fish m their 
possession, but we have not accomplished anything. We have been 
doing something all the time, but it seems to me that we have not 
done more than we have really not accomplished much in the way 
of legislation for the protection of our fish. 

I wish you would come down to the legislature some time. It is a 

very nice place to go and attempt to get something. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Covington. That is a place some of us like to keep away from. 

Mr. Hamilton. Doctor, I gather that your legislature in Maryland 

is not inclined to be responsive to the demands of your people that 

your fish should be protected ? 

Mr. Smith. Here [indicating] are the gentlemen who own the legis- 
lature. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Hamilton. I am judging from what you do. 
Mr. Smith. What are you going to do when you go up against a 
crowd like that ? They stand solidly together — the captain, the ship- 
mate, the steward, the lawyer, and the banker — absolutely together. 
We can not get anything from them. I would like to see anyone go 
down and get anything from that legislature. They are absolutely 
estopped. [Laughter.] 



32 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Mr. Hamilton. They have a larg^ number of fishermen as con- 
stituents, do they not? 

Mr. Smith. You know, in Maryland, when we have not anything 
to do we go fishing. 

Mr. Hamilton. We do that in Michigan. 

Mr. Smith. We go fishing. A large number of our citizens go fish- 
ing, sometimes for pleasure, but very often as a matter of profit, and 
the fishing interest is a very difiicult thing to abridge or cut short. 
We do not like to do it, because these men make their living off of 
the water, and it is a hard thing to get their consent. We do not do 
things down in Maryland \\athout consent. 

Mr. Hamilton. The protection of the fish would protect them in 
the long run, would it not. Doctor ? 

Mr. Smith. If we could persuade them to that opinion, we would 
be dehghted. That is what we have been endeavoring to do. 

(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

after recess. 

The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m. 

Mr, Covington. Who wishes to be heard ? Mr. Gardner, would 
you prefer to be heard now ? 

STATEMENT OF HON. A. P GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr, Gardner. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this 
is a matter which involves the livehhood of a large number of fisher- 
men along my part of the coast of Massachusetts, and likewise affects 
some other industries. As this bill is drawn it will prevent the selling 
of the surplus catch of what is known as bluebacks or kyacks to fer- 
tilizer companies. It will also prevent a glue factory or an oil con- 
cern from buying the waste from fish canneries or pacldng houses. 
I assume the committee does not wish to hear my views as to the 
constitutionality of this bill. I shall discuss the measure on the 
assumption that it can be put into constitutional shape. I also 
assume that there is no intention of preventing a glue factory, for 
instance, from purchasing and using in the manufacture of glue the 
waste product of a fish-packing establishment. I think as the bill is 
drawn it will prevent that, but I take it there is no intention of doing 
that. 

Mi\ Linthicum. Not at all. 

Mr. Gardner. Now, as to this question of the disposition to be 
made by boat fishermen of their surplus catch of bluebacks or kyacks, 
in order to identify the fish completely, I am going to ask Dr. Smith 
to give me the scientific name. 

Dr. Smith. The scientific name is pomolobus aestivalis. 

Mr. Gardner. I ask for the scientific name because in different 
parts of this country the same fish is called by different names. 

These bluebacks are caught at certain seasons when schools of them 
come along the coast, at irregular times, and go up the rivers and 
sounds in my neighborhood. W^hen the fish are running, a large 
number of boats set sail and catch them; as many as 30 sail might 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 33 

be out at one time in my neighborhood. They cover many miles of 
territory, each one seeking to intercept a school of bluebacks, if they 
are so fortunate as to do so. When the fishermen get their catch 
ashore — ^the income they get from the catch of these bluebacks is a 
very material part of their Uvehhood — when they get their bluebacks 
ashore, they proceed to dispose of them either for fi'esh bait for our 
fisheries, or else they sell them to the freezers, so called. In the 
freezers these fish are preserved for bait. Our deep-sea fisheries 
nowadays take a great deal of frozen fish as bait to be used on the 
Grand Banks and elsewhere. 

Quite often it will happen that simultaneously this big fleet of 
30 fishing boats, unbeknown to each other, spread over a large extent 
of territory, may all have luck simultaneously. They may all come 
ashore mth a very large catch of bluebacks. Then what happens? 
There is very often an excess after the freezers are full, and after 
every fisherman who w^ants fi-esh bait is suppHed, the excess is sold 
to fertiUzer factories, to factories that manufacture fertihzer. This 
is a great blessing to the fishermen. Formerly when on coming ashore 
they found that they had all been in luck, they were obUged to throw 
their surplus product overboard. That is what used to happen, 
I am told, before these fertiUzer factories were estabhshed, unless the 
fishermen could find farmers who would take that surplus fish and 
haul it directly away and put it out on the land without its going 
through a fertilizer factory. 

Now, the United States Fish Commission takes the ground that 
these bluebacks arc edible. Perhaps they are. So are skates edible. 
So are rays edible. Skates and rays are eaten in England, but the 
fact remains that there is no market for them with us. You can tell 
my neighbors, until you are black in the face, that a certain fungus 
of the mushroom family which grows in our fields, is edible; but you 
can not get them to eat it and can not get them to buy it. Therefore 
until the people in my part of the country are wilhng to eat up this 
surplus catch of bluebacks, the result is going to be, if you pass this 
this law m its present shape, that those surplus fish are all going to 
be dumped overboard. 

Some few 3"ears ago the selectmen of a town in the neighborhood 
of Boston complaioed of the vast quantity of herring that was being 
washed ashore, thereby spoiling their beach for bathing purposes. 
On investigation it appeared that those herring which were washed 
ashore had been throw^n overboard by the very men who caught 
them. Why ? Because the fishermen all had had luck at the same 
time. They had caught a great many more fish than the market 
would stand without forcing them to sell at ruinous prices. In order 
not to break the market, they had pitched the heriirg overboard. 
That is exactly what fishermen would have to do under this bill if 
, they could not sell their surplus to the fertilizer factories. 

Some one has argued: "Yes; but your people need not catch more 
fish than the}^ can profitably sell. " Put yourselves in the place of the 
individual boat fisherman. I have my boat at the mouth of a river, 
and you have your boat at the mouth of another river three miles 
off. The shore curves. Between us several more boats are scat- 
tered around. They have no wireless apparatus to commuiicate 
with each other. Not one of the boats knows what the other boats 

43049—14 3 



34 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

have caught. Suppose I run ijito a school of fish. Do you expect 
me to say: "Here is a splendid school, but I am afraid I have got my 
share already, and I should spoil the market if I were to catch any 
more." That would be absurd. If I said that, like as not when I 
got ashore I should fi'^d that the oth^r l)oats had had ]io luck. What 
a fool I should feel like. No fisherman could support a family if he 
undertook to fish on any such plan as that. 

The sum and substance of what I have been sajdng is this : Of late 
years this extra catch, which can not be foreseen, is disposed of to 
the fertihzing concerns. They have proved a boon to our fishermen. 
I suggest that fish used for the purpose of fertilizing the ground go 
a good deal further toward helping along the food supply of tliis 
country than fish dumped overboard out at sea. 

I have introduced some amendments here. One of them is 
designed to protect persons who use the refuse of our fish canneries 
and fish packing concerns. The other amendments arc designed for 
the protection of a mighty sturdy class of folks who make their Uving 
by clamming and by lobstering and by boat fisliing. 

For instance, in the first section of the bill I suggest that kyacs or 
bluebacks be included in the Ust of fishes which men shall be per- 
mitted to sell to fertiUzer factories. That amendment of com-se 
would meet the problem that I have just presented to you so far as 
my fishermen constituents are concerned. Under the terms of the 
bill fish may be disposed of for any purpose when they are the by- 
product of any industry. I suggest an amendment granting the 
same jDrivilege to fish which are the surplus product of any industry. 
I suggest, in the amendment which I have sent to the committee, that 
the surplus of any fishing industry may be disposed of to a fertihzer 
factory or to any other kind of business. 

Either of those amendments would meet the particular difficulty 
of which I complain. 

I do not know to what extent any harm is being done under the 
law as it is at present. I am quite confident that up my way, where, 
so far as I know, nobody eats bluebacks, no injury whatever is being 
done. As to what may be the injury in Chesapeake Bay, I understand 
that the best food herring is sometimes caught there in excessive 
quantities. I am also told that fish fry of all sorts, put out by the 
United States Fish Commission, are often caught with the herring. 
The circumstances may be different from what they are with my 
people. I can not pretend to say that they are not different, because 
I do not know. I suggest, however, that if such is the case, and if 
this difficulty is principally confined to Chesapeake Bay, there is 
nothing to prevent the passage of a law, if a constitutional one can 
be devised, which will apply only to the waters of Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. Covington. You have doubts about the constitutional power 
of Congress to do that, however ? 

Mr. Gardner. I have still greater doubt as to the constitutionality 
of this particular bill. Most good lawyers think that the States never 
gave Congress the right to prohibit the interstate transportation of 
the products of child labor. This bill proposes to go far beyond 
that step. 

_ I wish that Congress could prohibit child labor; but if we never were 
given the power to forbid the transportation of the products of child 
labor, we never were given the power to prohibit the transportation 
of oil made out of some particular class of fish. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 35 

I am ready to answer any questions on this matter. 

Mr. EscH. What is the kyack? Does it belong to the herring 
family ? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, indeed. I think the distinction — I am getting 
far beyond my depth — but I think the distinction anatomically 
speaking between the blueback and the best food herring is that one 
has a black peritoneum and the other has a white peritoneum. 

Mr. EscH. You say the kyack is not an edible fish ? 

Mr. Gardner. The kyack or blueback is not an edible fish in the 
opinion of my constituents; that is, they will not buy it as food, and 
most of them will tell you it is not edible, but I told by Dr. Smith, 
of the Fish Commission, that it is, as a matter of fact, edible, and that 
up my way we have not been educated up to eating it. Wliile I con- 
cede that it may be edible, I also know of a great many other fish, 
said to be edible, which, as a matter of fact, people will not eat. I 
am going to read into the record a letter from one of these fishermen. 

Newburyport, Mass., January 29, 1914. 
Hon. A. P. Gardner. 

Dear Sir: I saw an article in the Gloucester Times of January 22, written by Dr. 
Fields, of the Massachusetts Fish Commission, speaking of a bill soon to be introduced 
by Congressman Linthicum, of Maryland, forbidding the catch of certain kinds of 
fish for fertilizer purposes. 1 wish to call your attention to one kind of fish which is 
caught extensively by the fleet of boats out of Gloucester, Newburyport, and Province- 
town. They are of no commercial value as a food fish, being caught solely for bait 
for the fishing fleet, either to sell fresh or to be put into the freezers for bait for winter. 
It is very often the case where there are so very many of these boats fishing (some 
50 sail) that when they get in with their fish there is no market for them for bait 
or to be put in the freezers. In that case they are obliged to sell them for oil and 
fertilizers, which is much better than taking them to sea and bailing these dead fish 
overboard again. These fish are a species of herring and are not an alewife. They 
are known to the fishermen as blue backs. I have never known of any of these fish 
being sold as food fish, either the fresh or salted. These fish usually arrive with the 
menhaden and are, with us, used for the same purposes. 

In Congressman Linthicum's bill it is allowable to use menhaden for fertilizer, and 
we ask the same privilege of the bluebacks. I think your attention will be called 
to this by the fishermen of Gloucester. 

Hoping you can help us in this matter of importance to us, I am. 
Respectfully, 

George G. Short, 

116 Water Street. 

The fish which we call an alewife in Massachusetts I think is not 
the same fish w hich you call an alewife in the waters of Chesapeake 
Bay. How is that, Dr. Smith ? 

Dr. Smith. It is the same fish. 

Mr. Gardner. What is the alewife that runs up the Hudson 
River, what is the scientific name ? 

Dr. Smith. Pseud serengus. 

Mr. Gardner. That means false herring? 

Dr. Smith. Tiiat means false herring. 

Mr. Gardner. I have hero a letter, of which I will only read a 
part, from a gentleman who represents Newburyport in the Massa- 
chusetts Legislature. This letter is from Mr. James Eugene Fowle, of 
Newburyport, Mass: 

Newburyport, Mass., February 15, 1914. 
Hon. Augustus P. Gardner, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Captain: I am taking the liberty to tell you how anxious the fishermen in 
this locality are over the bill prohibiting the sale of bluebacks for oil and fertilizer 
purposes. 



36 TO PBEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

I omit some of the letter, which is personal. 

I have, upon your suggestion tx) Capt. Short, written to Senator Weeks, and would 
write to others if I felt well enough acquainted with the Congressmen of Massachusetts. 
I understand the hearing has been obtained for Wednesday next. If I could be of 
any assistance I would come up to Washington. 

The rest of the letter is in regard to personal matters, interwoven 
with comments on the situation. This bill is very alarming to men 
who get their living entirely or even substantially from fishing. They 
see one of their sources of Hvehhood imperiled. It is not fair to keep 
those men in suspense. I hope that this committee \\t11 arrive at an 
early conclusion as to whether or not it is proper to insert in this bill 
such language as may permit fishermen to dispose of the surplus 
which comes as an incident to the conduct of their industry. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. May I ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Covington. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I want to ask you, do you know how many of these 
fish are sold for fertilizer and what proportion are used for bait ? 

Mr. Gardner. No; I do not. Dr. Field might know. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. You made the statement a while ago. 

Mr. Field. There is relatively a small proportion, I think, used for 
fertihzer. They are mostly used for bait. The general situation has 
been that they have been unable to get sufficient bait. 

Mr. Gardner. The general situation has been they have been 
unable to get sufficient bait. In other words, in your opinion, it is 
generally the surplusage, not the main business ? 

Mr. Field. Yes; that is practically true of all the Gloucester 
fishermen. However, there are about 300 Sicihan fishermen in Boston 
Harbor who sell them in the same way, but they are more incfined to 
throw them overboard, if they can not get a certain amount of money 
for them. 

Mr. Gardner. They throw them overboard rather than break the 
market ? 

Mr. Field. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gardner. Wlien you speak of the Sicihans, you are speaking 
of fishermen who catch the food herring, are you not ? 

Mr. Field. They use them for both bait and for food, the same fish 
you have in mind. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Is it not a custom among those fishermen that if 
they can not get a certain price for the fish, rather than sell them to 
the people as a food, they throw them overboard or sell them to the 
factories ? 

Mr. Field. In the neighborhood of Gloucester, where there is a 
market for fertilizer, they sell them that way, but sometimes there are 
not sufficient fertihzer factories in Massachusetts to take up the sur- 
plus, and I have known cases where these Sicilian fishermen, to the 
number of 200 or 300, sometimes throw over a very considerable num- 
ber of herring. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. They do that rather than sell them to the people 
at reduced prices ? 

Mr. Field. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. If they were prohibited from catching more than 
they could dispose of, would they sell them to the people at a reduced 
price? 

Mr. Gardner. How could they ? 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 37 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I mean to say, if they were proliibited from throw- 
ing them overboard, or selling to the fertihzer factories, would they 
not put them on the market at a reduced price and let the people 
have the advantage of that price? 

Mr. Field. I do not see how they could. 

Mr. Gardner. May I ask how you propose to prevent them throw- 
ing them overboard ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Yes ; I think I can answer that question by asking 
this further question: Is there not a movement in your State to 
prohibit them from catching fish in a seine and pulHng them up on 
shore ? 

Mr. Gardner. I have heard of something of the sort, I think. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. They can only catch them in nets and only catch 
a boat load? 

Mr. Gardner. I am not sure. 

Mr. Covington. That is a matter that has absolutely nothing to do 
with the interstate-conmierce character of control of fish, to be char- 
acterized either m the first place as migratory fish or in the second 
place being converted in a commercial aspect and shipped into mter- 
state commerce. That is a matter the States would have to deal 
with ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuivi. The matter does not come up in this way at all. 
It comes up in interstate commerce. 

Mr. Covington. I called the attention of the gentleman that there 
are onlv two ways this question could arise. 

Mr. Gardner. Your bill has nothing to do with the movement of 
which you speak, which, by the way, is more agitated elsewhere than 
in Massachusetts. When a man draws his seine in what is caUed 
a strand fishery, it is easy enough to see what he does with his catch. 
The fishermen of whom I speak are not engaged in a strand fishery. 
I am speaking of the boat nshery. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I think I have covered this point, but I will ask 
you, do you know what quantity is used in fertilizer? 

Mr. Gardner. Dr. Field answered that. 

Mr. Escii. If a bill is to be enacted, Mr. Gardner, do you not think 
we ought to put in the scientific names of the fish, in view of the fact 
that people have different names for these fish in different sections ? 

Mr. Gardner. By all means. 

Mr. Escii. You illustrated that by calling herring a blueback. 

Mr. Gardner. Once in a while I go down into this Washington 
Market. I find that I call every second fish by a different name from 
what the fish dealers call it. By all means use the scientific names 
if you report a bill. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I am told that years ago in your State you used 
to catch so many shad that you used those on the land as fertilizer? 

Mr. Gardner. I never heard of it, but I can quite understand that 
it may have been so in prehistoric days. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. No; about 30 or 40 years ago. 

Mr. Gardner. No; certainly not. I am too old for that. I do not 
remember any shad in my lifetime on the coast there. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with 
the gentleman. 

Mr. Gardner. I am speaking of my part of the coast. 



38 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. The Fish Commissioner told me they did use shad 
up there on the land as fertilizer. 

Mr. Gardner. That may be so, but I say that in my lifetime there 
has never been a shad on my part of the coast. A boy can not live 
on the coast without knowing what kind of fish is there, you may be 
sure of that. 

Mr. EscH. Has the shad become more sacred than the cod on your 
coast ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Shad would not bite at a hook anyway. 

Mr. Gardner. Nevertheless, a boy would know mighty well if 
there were any about. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. He would not know it as a fisherman with a hook 
and line. 

Mr. Gardner. A boy on the coast would know. Some shad, in 
these days, might go up the Merrimac River, but when I was a boy, 
before the days of electric cars and automobiles, the Merrimac River 
was a very long distance from where I hved. I Uved in what is now 
the lower part of my district. 

Mr. Covington. You liave some doubt as to the constitutionality 
of this bill as a whole, as I understand you, but you did not go into 
that ? 

Mr. Gardner. I am not a lawyer. If I were to discuss what strike 
me as some very obviously unconstitutional features of this bill, I 
might be accused of venturing out of my depth. Perhaps I had 
better confine myself to the practical side of the question. 

Mr. Covington. Does that conclude your statement? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir; unless you gentlemen of the committee 
have any questions which you msh to ask. 

Mr. EscH. You have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the States 
in these matters, have you ? 

Mr. Gardner. Not the slightest doubt as to .the jurisdiction of 
the State of Massachusetts as to what goes on in Plum Island River. 
That is a sound entirely A\dthin Massachusetts' jurisdiction. The 
question of the joint jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia over the 
waters of Chesapeake Bay seems to me to be quite a different prob- 
lem. I know nothing about it, however. 

Mr. Covington. I think probably what Mr. Esch is getting at is 
that if what is occurring in Massachusetts needed rectifying, Massa- 
chusetts, through its legislatiure, would be able to do it? 

Mr. Gardner. Unquestionably. Possibly Chesapeake Bay may 

{)resent an interstate question, inasmuch as it borders both on Mary- 
and and Virginia. 

STATEMENT OF MR. W. I. WAKBURTON, ELKTON, MD. 

Mr. Covington. Whom do you represent in this particular hearing ? 

Mr. Warburton. I represent the fishermen's association of Harford, 
Cecil, and Kent Counties, Md. Shall I proceed? 

Mr. Covington. You may proceed. 

Mr. Warburton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
I assure you that my remarks shall have at least one merit^ — that of 
brevity. I have listened very attentively to what has been said to 
this committee in advocacy of this biU, and as far as the remarks and 
testimony affect the ijiterests of the fishermen I represent, I have 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 39 

been amazed at the iracciiracy of the data. Now, it is admitted 
that herrirg are a food fish, but I am siiipiised that anybody is 
apprehensive that herrii^g are decreasing, and that the demand for 
herring as a food fish can not he siipphed. 

It is a fact, capable of proof, a^'d which we will prove to this com- 
mittee by men who are ei)gaged in taking fish from the headwaters of 
Chesapeake Bay and its tribntaiies, that herring have increased 
rapidly and continuously since 1884. In 1884 pound-net fishing 
commenced in the Chesapeake and its tributaries. Prior to that time 
fishing was carried on by what the gentleman s])oke of as strand 
fishing, by putting out into the water what is called in that section of 
the State haiding seines, extending away out ijito the river, and then 
united at either end to a capstan and by horses driven around, or by 
steam applied to the capstan, drawji to the shore. That system of 
fishing was gradually abandoned after 1884, and the Legislature of 
Maryland authorized fishing by pound nets. 

I will digress just at this point. There has been a great deal said 
to this committee about the Maryland Legislature and the influence 
of the fishermen in that State, and from what has been said you 
would suppose that most everybody in the State of Maryland was 
engaged in fishing. Now, the fact is that those actually ejigaged in 
taking fish from the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries constitute 
numerically a small portion of the population of Maryland. But 
as far as character and industry is concerned, they constitute a 
most valuable asset to its citizenship. 

As I said a moment ago, we are able to show that the herring are 
on the increase. We have learned here this morning a fact, which I 
believe I knew before, that the Government does not propagate 
herring; that there has been no artificial propagation of herring. 
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that herring havt; continually increased 
in the headwaters of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries since 1884. 
Where I live, in the town of Elkton, to show the gentlemen who are 
not familiar with the matter, I will tell them what I have seen. The 
herring come up in the spring of the year, as everyone knows, for 
the purpose of spawning in fresh water, and not only come up into 
the rivers that empty into the bay, but from the rivers go to the 
creeks and the runs and go as far as they have sufficient water to 
carry them for the purpose of spawning, and I have seen, in the 
stream at Elkton, which is not much wider than where I stand to 
where you sit, Mr. Chairman, so literally filled with herring that 
they smother each other in the water and hundreds were dead 
upon the water, floating upon it. That is the condition at the head- 
waters, and the only time since 1884 there has been any appreciable 
falling off, as far as herring is concerned in the Chesapeake Bay or 
its tributaries, was in 1913, and why? Let us look at the reason. 
Every member of this committee, and every man within the sound 
of my voice, knows the conditions of the weather last spring, and 
everyone knows that when such conditions of weather prevail, that 
the fish will not come up to the fresh water, but they evidently seek 
other waters for the purpose of spawning. Now, every fisherman 
knows that. That is practical knowledge, and during that time we 
had freezing weather; we had very cold storms and rains and 
adverse winds, and the fish did not come up as they did formerly. 



40 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

The only thing that these men are interested in, whom I represent, 
is this. They are engaged in a lawful occupation under the laws of 
the State of Maryland; that State has authorized them by legislation 
to fish with pound nets; it has authorized them to begin at a certain 
season of the year, and it requires them to discontinue at a certain 
time of the year, and they fish for shad and for herring and what is 
called the small fry, perch and so on. Just here let me remark, for 
fear I forget it, a great deal has been said here about the perch and 
such fishes as are called small fry going to the fertilizer factory with 
the lierring. Now, the people who assert that do not understand 
the habits of fish at all, and we wUl show you by the fisliermen. 
When the run of herring is on in the waters there are not enougli of 
that small fry caught to feed the men engaged in the work. The 
herring exclude every other fish from the net, and they are taken up 
at that, time in great quantities. 

WHiat is this demand for herring that they are talking about '^ 
What is this demand for herring as a food fish they are talking about ? 
I will just read you some letters. We have heard here to-day that 
sliced herring with the viscera removed wore selling as high as $6 a 
barrel; would bring S6 a barrel, and that herring salted down, would 
bring $4 a barrel. Now, if that is true, why there is no necessity 
for this bdl to protect the herring, because this surplus lierring that 
is caught and sold to these boats by these men are paid for at $1.25 
per 1,000, and just as the gentleman who preceded me h<^re said, 
w4io can tell when they put their nets down how many fish they are 
going to get, and when these people are engaged in fishing what 
are they going to do with this surplus? Sliall they throw it over- 
board and let it become a stench and nuisance i Wlien all demand 
for herring is supplied, and amply supplied at a price, I was going to 
say, may it please the cliairman — at a price that will scarcely justify 
taking it out of the w^ater, why should not these fishermen dispose 
of their surplus in this way, instead of throwing dead fish into the 
waters? And why should not the people have the benefit of the oil 
and the fertilizer? 

If it were true that the- food fish — the hernng as a food fish — was 
being destroyed so nobody could get herring, that would be another 
question; but I will just read you some letters that will show wliat 
nsh in the year 1913 — the year they claim they were scarce — what they 
were selling for. 

Here is a letter from C. E. Davis Packing Co., Flee ton, Va.: 

Mr. Harry L. Harvey, 

Northeast, Md. 
Dear Sir: In May of last year — 

That is, 1913, and that is the year tliat tliey were scarce on account 
of adverse winds 'and weather conditions — 

in May of last year we were offered several thousand barrels and half banels of cut 
and roe herring by Norfolk jobbers and brokers. These herring had been bought 
by the Norfolk parties, but they were unable to dispose of them at any price, so we 
thought we might be able to make use of them for fertilizers. 

These were lierring that had been salted; these were prepared. 
Now, what happened ? 

We bought of one particular broker, Charles Sire &. Co., 1,570 barrels of cut herring, 
at 55 cents to 80 cents per barrel, delivered aboard our steamer, and 1,637 half bar- 
rels of roe herring, at 13 to 27 cents delivered. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 41 

Now, what? 

We were later offered several thousand additional from other dealers; but after 
handling this first lot we found they were not even worth use for fertilizer. With 
kindest regards, I remain, 
Yours, very truly, 

0. E. Davis Packing Co, 

^Ir. LiNTHicuM. To what price did they afterwards go about two 
or three months after that? You saw statements in the paper 
about Gen. Vandiver and others seeking out all the lierring? 

Mr. Warburton. Yes; and the fishermen wall tell you that is not 
true. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. To what price did they go ? 

Mr. Warburton. I do not know. I am not familiar wath that. 
Of course, I did not sell any. 

I have bills of the fishermen wlio have sent fish to Baltimore City, 
for instance, here is four barrels: 

We could not sell these herring, arrived Friday; impossible for me to get freight 
money. 

Edwin S. Huff, Dock Street Fish Market. 

That is Philadelphia. Here is another: 

George R. Finn, Elkton, Md. — 

I do not know how many barrels that is — 

Freight and charges, 50 cents. Could not sell these herring. Impossible for me to 
get freight money. William D. Racine, 3 barrels, freight and charges, |1.50. Could 
not sell these herring. Impossible for me to get freight money. 

Edwin S. Huff. 

Ijet us come to Baltimore. 

Mr. EscH. Are those all practically the same thing? 

Mr. Warburton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Escii. Was there any condition of the market at that time, 
any particular condition which caused this? 

^Ir. Warbirton. I do not know at all, sir. These men here can 
tell you that. Here is G. D. Buddock & Co., Baltimore, Md. 

Messrs. W. J. Wilson &, Sons — 

This is from Baltimore, Md. — 

May 13, 1908, total receipts from you so far tliis season amount of 119 barrels gross; 
69 barrels and 50 barrels — 119 barrels. We have sold the 69 barrels at |2, and will 
sell the 50 as soon as sale can be made. Selling fish is hard work. Nobody seems to 
want them. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. That was in June, was it not? 

Mr. Warburton. That was in May. 

Mr. Gardner. Do you know the scientific name of the kind of 
herring you are speaking about now? 

Mr. Warburton. I do not. In our section we call them herring, 
but I have heard them spoken of this morning as ale wives. 

Mr. Gardner. Perhaps, Dr. Smith, you can tell me whether these 
are what are called alewives ? 

Dr. Smith. These are what are called alewives and bluebacks, in 
Massachusetts. 

Mr. Warburton. Both kinds run together in Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. Talcott. The kiacks, are they just the same as the bluebacks ? 

Mr. Warburton. Running through all these bills is the same 
story. 



42 TO PEEVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER, 

Mr. Gardner. Mav I ask this question? Are these two different 
species of fish both classified as herring? 

Mr. Warburton. I never knew. You are asking me a question 
which I can not answer, for I have no technical or expert knowledge 
on the subject. 

Mr. H. L. Harvey. They are all the same. We call them the 
branch and the glut herring. 

Mr. Gardner. The glut herring is what we call the blueback. 
What is the name of the other ? 

Mr. H. L. Harvey. Branch herring. 

Mr. Gardner. The branch htrring are what we call alewives. Is 
that correct, Dr. Smith ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gardner. I ask you, Dr. Smith, whether the fish which the 
Maryland fish'^rmen call the glut herring is the fish which in Mas- 
sachusetts is called the blueback? 

Dr. Smith. That is the case. 

Mr. Gardner. I also ask you whether the fish which the Maryland 
fishermen call branch h^^rring is the fish which is called alewif e ? 

Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gardner. I ask you, Mr. Harvey, whether the barrels of 
herring of which Mr. Warburton is speaking contained glut herring 
and branch herring both ? 

Mr. Harvey. We very seldom ever sell any branch herring. 
They are not so numerous as all that. 

Mr. Gardner. Ordinarily the 3^ are entirely the glut herring? 

Mr. Harvey. The glut herring; yes, sir. They are salted. 

Mr. Gardner. Mav 1 ask wh(ither there is a market for them as a 
food fish ? 

Mr. Harvey. The glut herring ? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Harvey. Tiiere is, at a very small price. 

Mr. Warburton. And a very limited market, is it not ? 

Mr. Harvey. It is very limited. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. May I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts a 
question ? 

Mr. Covington. He is not on the witness stand. 

Mr. Gardner. I am perfectly willing to answer any questions I can. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I want to ask the gentleman whether he has 
thoroughly demonstrated by those questions that the blueback is an 
edible fish and that these gentlemen catch a great many of them and 
sell them as edible fish ? 

Mr. Gardner. I quite agree, so far as the bluebacks being sold as 
edible fish in Chesapeake Bay is concerned, I am convinced the gen- 
tleman, Mr. Linthicum, is correct in his supposition. 

Mr. Covington. Proceed, Mr. Warburton. 

Mr. Warburton. I am reading now from the Virginia Citizen, a 
paper published at Irvington, Va., and I find this: 

HERRING IN ABUNDANCE. 

That herring and other prolific migratory fish can never be depleted so long as the 
ocean does not go dry, is the opinion of Dr. Prince, the eminent scientist at the head 
of Canada's great fishery interests. 

This view is also taken by other reliable authorities, and it is only those not 
acquainted with fish life or those who have an ulterior motive that persistently 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 48 

clamor that these fishes are being destroyed by man. Man's dip from the briny 
deep is but like a drop from a bucket. Were it not for shark, bluefish, mackerel, 
and such predatory species, the teeming billions of herring, shad, menhaden, and 
such like, would literally block all estuaries of the coast in certain seasons, becoming 
a stench and a nuisance. 

They miss our waters occasionally, but show up elsewhere. A report this fall 
from Newfoundland stated that bays up there were being blocked with the runs of 
herring; that there was no great demand for them, and the fishermen had to take up 
their nets to get rid of them. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Is there any objection to Dr. Smith asking Mr. 
Warburton a question right at that point ( I think Mr. Warburton 
misunderstands the fish referred to. 

Dr. Smith. I should hke to know if he knows the fish Mi. Prince 
referred to are not the herring in the Chesapeake Bay, but the sea 
herring of the North Atlantic '( 

Mr. Warburton. I do not. Now, coming down to the practical 
part of this, these men, I say, are engaged in a lawful occupation, 
made so by the laws of Maryland. They fish for herring and shad, 
and the fish by a system called pound nets, and those pound nets are 
staked out in the water. There has been a great deal of talk of 
blocking up the waters so the fish could not get to their spawning 
places. I want to say that under the laws of Maryland they are only 
allowed to go out 800 yards from the shore, only allowed to stake 
their nets out 800 yards from shore, and where these men fish — -these 
men whom I represent — -it leaves a space 7 to 8 miles for the fish to 
pass up the liver. Then they talk about blocking up the river. I 
do not know what they do down at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay; 
I do not suppos;^ they block it up; but I am speaking of the condi- 
tions now at the headwaters and tributaries of the bay in our county 
and in Harford and in Kent, and the river there where these j)eople 
fish, from shore to shore, has a width of 7 to 8 miles, and the pound 
nets are only allowed to l)e put out 800 yards from either shore. 

Mr. EscH. Is it the nature of the fish to follow the shore line, or to 
go out in the channel ? 

Mr. Warburton. That I can not say. I stated I was not ac- 
quainted with the habits of the fish, and I do not know. 

Mr. EscH. Possibly Dr. Smith would know, and I will ask him 
that question. 

Dr. Smith. These fish are attracted by the fresh water, and when 
they enter the bay they seek the shore immediately. 

Mr. EscH. So in the passage up the bay they would go up the 
shores, and not up the channel? 

Dr. Smith. The movements of the shad and herring in Chesapeake 
Bay is always toward the shore and up the streams. 

The gentleman has misquoted me, and I should hke an opportunity 
to correct him. I made no reference whatever to the pound nets at 
the head of Chesapeake Bay. My reference was to the pound nets 
from Washington to the mouth of the Potomac, and from thence on 
to the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. Warburton. I was speaking particularly about the condi- 
tions; about their not blocking up the river. Somebody used the 
word "blocking." 

Mr. Harvey. The Susquehanna Flats are very shoal, they are con- 
sidered natural spawning grounds, and there are more herring caught 



44 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

there than any other place in the river, so it is very evident that the 
herring take to the Susquehanna Flats. 

Mr. Warburton. As I said a moment ago, these men are engaged 
in a lawful occupation according to the laws of the State of Mary- 
land, and it would be presumption on my part, and I am not going 
to enter into it — -I have my opinion about it, but I am not going to 
enter into a discussion of the legal phases of this bill, or its constitu- 
tionaUty, etc. There is one thing, though, that I think no one will 
undertake to gainsay oi- deny, and that is that the State of Maryland 
has the right to say how fishing shall be done in her waters. 

Ml-. Covington. Is it not doing that at the present time? 

Mr. Warburton. Is doing that and has that right. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Can the State of Maryland itself prohibit tlie sale 
of these fish for fertihzing purposes in another State ? 

Mr. Warburton. No, sir. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Therefore it must be national legislation ? 

Mr. Warburton. No, sir; but I am speaking about these men here. 
They are engaged in a la\\^ul occupation under the laws of the State 
of Maryland, and they are taking fish from the headwaters of the 
bay, and tliey'have a right to take them. Now, there is no proof 
before this committee, and I said that they can ransack the United 
States for proof, and they will find that they can not get it, that there 
is any diminution of herring as a food fish below the demand, and 
you can buy them for almost nothing, and everybody knows the people 
do not eat herring. They are not a food fish in the sense of being 
universally used. 

Mr. Covington. Let me ask you whether you know that the State 
of Maryland has, in the oyster industry, already legislated to prevent 
the sale, and the catching and sale beyond the confines of the State 
of oysters under a certain size, the so-called planting oysters ? 

Mr. Warburton. I do. That is true. 

Mr. Covington. The right of the State to do that has never been 
seriously controverted ? 

Mr. Warburton. It ha> never been cj^uestioned. 

Mr. Covington. And that law to-day is being successfully enforced 
in the State of Maryland ? 

Mr. Warburton. That is so. 

Mr. Linthicum. They regulate as to the size of the oyster, though ? 

Mr. Warburton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Linthicum. You seem to lay special stress on the point that 
these men have the right to df) tliis according to the laws of the State 
of Maryland. Has not the distillery business a right to do business 
according to the laws of the State, of Maryland; yet this Congress 
has prohibited the shipping of their product into other States where 
it is local option territory ? 

Mr. Warburton. Yes; that is true. 

Mr. LiJMTHicuM. So it is not unusual for the Government to pro- 
hibit shipment of certain things ? 

Mr. Warburton. But, if you will bear with me, I am coming to the 
point. As I stated, these men are engaged in a lawful occu])ation, 
and in fishing for shad, when the glut of herring is on, they take up a 
great deal more herring than they can dispose of, and unless they have 
the privilege of selling to the fertilizer factories, they must dump 
them overboard, because there is no demand for them. Now, if they 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 45 

are dumped overboard they become a nuisance in the water, and I 
contend that unless the State of MaryLand legislates against taking 
them out of the water that the United States Government has not 
that power. They have the power to prevent them being sold for 
fertilizer and oil, but they can not prevent them being taken out of 
the water, and when they are taken out in scows, those pound nets 
are dipped and put in the scows, what is going to become of the 
surplus? Just as the gentleman from Massachusetts was stating 
some time ago. 

Mr. Talcott. Do you think the State of Maryland has the exclu- 
sive jurisdiction over that matter, or has jurisdiction only until the 
Federal Government acts ? 

Mr. Warburton. You mean m the matter of taking fish, as to 
how they shall take them ? 

Mr. Talcott. Yes; general control over fisheries? 

Mr. Warburton. I "think the State of Maryland has exclusive 
control over that ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. You %vill admit the Government has something to 
say about the transshipment of these fish into another State ? 

Mr. Warburton. Oh, yes; there is no doubt about that. The 
remarks that T nave made to the committee are for the purpose of 
showing that this is not a destruction of food fish to the extent of 
diminishing the fish that are necessary to supply the demand, or even 
increasing the price. It is only to get clear of this surplus, and how 
does any man know who is fishing? I submit, how can any man 
know? 

By the way, that reminds me that there was a letter read this 
morning by some one to the effect that somebody wanted fish, and took 
a boat down to Turkey Point, and there were 18 steamers loading 
fish. Was not that stated here ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuiM. The letter speaks for itself. I think that is right. 

Mr. Warburton. That is my recollection. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. That is about it; yes. 

Mr. Warburton. Here are gentlemen who fish at Turkey Pomt 
and know that is absolutely false. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Mr. Harrison is a member of the Legislature of 
Maryland. 

Mr. Warburton. Very well, they know that is absolutely false, 
and they will testify there never were 18 steamers there at aU. 

Mr. EscH. There was a letter read by Dr. Smith this morning from 
a fisherman, or from a fish firm of the lower Potomac, showing a very 
large reduction between 1907 and 1913. Is that the experience 
anywhere in your territory ? 

Mr. Warburton. Not at all. That was on the Potomac River, 
and there are conditions on the Potomac River that account for that, 
apart from the quantity of fish. 

Air. Talcott. Is there any law in the State of Maryland prohibiting 
the catching of fish for the purpose of manufacturing them into 
fertilizer ? 

Mr. Warburton. No, sir. Now, gentlemen, I have made these 
broken remarks as best I could. 

Mr. Gardner. There is such a law in Virginia, is there not? 

Mr. Warburton. That I do not know. 



46 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Mr. LiNTHiGUM. I Siiy, in answer to the gentleman's question, 
there is no such hiw as to herring at the present time, but I under- 
stood from the State commissioner of Virginia that such a law is 
contenmlated to be passed. 

Mr. Gardner. There is a law now in Virginia which prevents the 
catching of herring for fertilizer purposes. 

;Mi'. Linthicum. There is a law in Virginia which prevents the 
catching of herring for fertilizer purposes ? 

Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Linthicum. Then you get them from Maryland ? 

Mr. Gardner. That is a matter up to Maryland. 

Mr. Linthicum. That is a very, very good point. 

Mr. Warburton. I will tell you what I suggest, Mr. Linthicum. 
I suggest that if you just accept from your bill the surplus herring 
that these men catch, why we will have nothing more to say. 

Mr. Linthicum. You are in favor of that, Mr. Warburton, I take it 
from your remarks, that all herring they catch and do not care to sell 
for food fish or other purposes, they should be allowed to sell to Vir- 
ginia for fertihzer purposes, while Virginia has a law upon its statute 
books prohibiting them from catching herring in their State for fer- 
tilizer purposes; that we should take out herring and sell them to 
their State for that purpose ? 

Mr. Warburton. I am not particular where they sell them, be- 
cause they are no use to us. Dead, rotting fish are a nuisance, a 
stench. 

Mr. Linthicum. You are in favor of selling them? 

Mr. Warburton. That surplus catch. 

Mr. Linthicum. For fertilizer purposes ? 

Mr. Warburton. For fertilizer purposes or for any tiling they can 
be manufactured into. 

Mr. Covington. I wish to insert in the record at this point that the 
Secretary of Commerce has just telephoned to the secretary of this 
committee that he has examined the bill H. R. 7774, and that he is 
in favor of the principle embraced in that bill and desires the com- 
mittee to make the matter of record that he advocates and indorses 
its passage. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIS J. DAVIS, CLERK OF THE 

COMMITTEE. 

Mr. Davis. The Secretary of Commerce has just called me over the 
phone and stated that he intended to appear here this afternoon; 
that he did come down to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, thinking this bill had been referred there; that he promised 
^Ir. Linthicum to appear here this afternoon, but, through error, 
he went to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries and 
made inquiry and they naturally knew nothing about it. He then 
came out and found somebody outside of the committee room waiting 
for him on a matter which necessitated his return to his office, and 
when he got back to his office he found he was scheduled to come 
before this committee instead of the Committee on the Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries; that it was then impossible for him to come back here 
this afternoon, bui he states that he is heartily in favor of this bill, 
and wished me to so state publicly, and that he is ready to come be- 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOB FERTILIZER. 47 

fore this committee eitlier to-morrow, the next day, or any other time 
the committee desires, and to appear before the committee in support 
of the bill. He wanted lh\ Linthicum and the members of this com- 
mittee to know this. 

STATEMENT OF W. S. DOWNS, BAY SHORE, L. I. 

The Chairman. State your name and your occupation. 

Mr. Downs. My name is W. S. Downs; I Uve at Bay Shore, L. I.; 
I am secretary of the Long Island Gunners and Fishermen's Associa- 
tion, representing practically the entire fishing industry of Long 
Island and the salt water business of the State of New York. 

Mr. CoviNGTOX. Are you taking a position in favor of or in opposi- 
tion to this bill ? 

Mr. Downs. There are features of it that 1 believe we are in opposi- 
tion to. There has been a good deal said here to-day in regard to 
fish. We, in New York State, from time to time have legislation 
introduced detrimental to the commercial fisheries, and, needless to 
say, we have to oppose it. I had the honor a few years ago of placing 
on the statute books, or of being instrumental in the placing on the 
statute books, of the State of New York of a law to prohibit the taking 
of food fish and using them for fertilizei- purposes. I am in hearty 
sympathy with that movement. I do not beheve that food fish 
should be utilized for fertilizing purposes; that is, of course, food 
fish. You make an exception in this bill with respect to fish known 
as pogies, fatbacks, and mossbunkers, sharks, dogfish, skates, and 
every one of them is a food fish. There is no sweeter fish that swims 
in salt water than this same mossbunker, and it is used by a great 
many people as a food fish. The herring is in the same class. 

When we passed that law in New York we did not think of the her- 
ring being what we commonly term a food fish. We classed it with 
the other fish that you have named in the bill. But to-day sharks, 
dogfish, and skates especially are being sold and utilized in the markets 
of the State of New York, every one they can get hold of. The Ital- 
ians think more of a shark than they do of a Spanish mackerel. The 
Englishman thinks more of the skate than any other fish that swims. 
They call it a delicacy; therefore they are food fish as well as the her- 
ring. 

My objection to this bill is the possibility of hampering the fishing 
industry of the State of New York — that is. the menhaden industry — 
by having in there that no food fish — so-called food fish, as you please 
to term them; that is, the herring — should be ground up for fertiUzer. 

Now we all know that herring, bunkere, and other fish travel some- 
times close together. Menhaden fishermen will catch a school of men- 
haden in which there will be a few herring, or maybe a weakfish or 
two, and the possibility of a bluefish. In a boatload of say five or 
six hundred thousand they might not be seen. They take them to 
the factory; some inspector stands there, and as they scoop out the 
fish they discover a weakfish or a herring and they go over into the fac- 
tory as food fish in that boatload of herring. That is aU right. You 
do not pretend to stop it, if caught and used in that State, but you do 
pretend to stop it being transported into any other State. Is that the 
idea; that is, unless it is tagged ? 



48 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

Now, I am very zealous of putting laws on the statute books to 
prevent people from being lawbreakers. There is not a man in this 
room, be he a scientist or a layman, that can pick out a herring 
from a mossbunker after it has been through a fertilizing plant and 
dried. Believe me they can not tell whether it contains herring or 
bunkers ; they are all together. 

Mr. EscH. That is just as true of the oil. 

Mr. Downs. That is just as true of the oil. If you go down into 
a restaurant and ask for a bluefish or a weakfish, if you are not 
pretty careful and look at its skin, you do not know what you are 
eating. You do not know whether it is a bluefish or a weakfish 
when you get it at a restaurant. I am very zealous with regard 
to the man behind the gun, and that has not been brought out to-day. 

Now, if this bill is honest and wants to conserve the fish, all right, 
but I have not heard anybody in favor of this bill to-day, except 
the gentleman who is the introducer, but who has been representing 
the sporting interests. I am very zealous of the people who repre- 
sent the sporting interests in favor of a bill because I am always 
afraid they want to put the commercial industry out of business. 
This does not appear, on the face of it, to do it but here is a section 
which reads : 

That the Secretary of Commerce shall make such rules and regulations as are neces- 
sary for carrying out the provisions of this act. 

I am not a lawyer, but what is to prevent the Secretary of Com- 
merce from saying, ''You shall not set nets," if it is to carry out 
the provisions of this bill ? It is well to think how much power you 
are putting into the hands of one man. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. You have read the bill carefully, have you ? 

Mr. Dow^NS. Quite carefully. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. And you do not find that it is limited entirely to 
the question of using food fish for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Downs. It says: "Food fish for fertilizer." It also says that 
the Secretary of Commerce shall make such rules and regulations as 
are necessary for carrying out the provisions of this act. Wliat is to 
prevent him, if he deems it necessary to carry out the provisions of 
that act, from saying, ' ' You shall not catch fish ' ' ? 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. The whole provisions of the act. 

Mr. Downs. That is carrying it a good way; but, nevertheless, I am 
always zealous. I know that our conservation people in New York 
will tell you when they introduce a bill there is nothing in the bill 
that hurts you, but when we sift it down it puts us out of business, 
and I do not care to be put out of business because I am a fisherman. 
I fish in Long Island, and fish with these pound nets that you hear 
about. There is only one way to catch edible fish for the market, and 
that is with pound nets, and that is the only way by which the market 
can be continually supphed with fish. You can not depend upon a 
hook and fine. You can not depend upon a set net. There are days 
and days that they are not catching anything. The only proper way 
to catch edible fish for market purposes is with a pound net. That is 
the only way by which the market can be supplied and suppUed 
regularly. 

Down our way we are under a permit from the War Department. I 
believe the War Department b?is done the same thing with the Jersey 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 49 

Beach; they have done the same thing with the Chesapeake. If those 
pound nets are such a menace, as you have heard, to navigation 
and hfe, do you think the War Department would stand for them for 
a moment? They would not. They would take them out very 
quickly. There is nothing to that. 

Dr. Smith. Have you seen a certificate that the War Department 
has issued? 

Mr. Downs. In regard to the Chesapeake ( 

Dr. Smith, Yes. 

Mr. Downs. No, sir; not this year I have not. 

Mr. Covington. Dr. Smith, do you mean to say that the War 
Department has not issued a very elaborate circular regulating fishing 
in the Chesapeake? 

Dr. Smith. I meant to say that it had, covering the very point 
the gentleman is speaking upon. 

Mr. Covington. It was susceptible of the other conclusion. 

Mr. Downs. I did not myself say that there was anything in the 
suggestion about their being a menace. In considering the fishing 
question from time to time — and I may say that I have attended our 
State legislature, and I am the agent of tHe War Department for the 
waters of the Great South Bay, as far as navigation is concerned — 
it is a remarkable thing that so far as we laymen who follow the 
water and study the fish, and the scientist who has made a complete 
study of it, as well as the expenditure of money, are concerned, it 
is not what we know about fish, but it is what we do not know. 

A good deal is said about the spawning habits. It was mentioned 
to-day that there are no shad ever in the North River. There are 
not and there wiU not be any more until the North River is cleaned 
up of its pollution. A fish is not a dirty animal, and he wiU not go 
there as long as the sewers of New York are going to be dumped into 
the North River. As long as that continues there will be no more 
shad there. 

Two years ago — whether they were caught in the Chesapeake or 
Delaware River I do not know — but I do know this, that two years 
ago there was the biggest lot of shad fish in history in the markets of 
New York. There were more shad there two years ago than they 
had ever known before in their lives, and still they say there is no 
shad. The same could be said of the herring in certain places. We 
have some herring up north in the Great South Bay, but not very 
many. The same thing applies to what you have here, with regard 
to the bluefish. In aU these years that we have been catching blue- 
fish they came up, in the last three years, with more bluefish on this 
coast than were ever known before in the world. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. May I ask you a question. I think you have 
probably got this bill somewhat confounded with another biU. The 
question in this bill is as to whether food fish shaU be used for fer- 
tilizer, and that is what I would hke to hear the gentleman express 
himself upon — as to whether he is in favor of the use of food fish as 
a fertilizer, or not ? 

Mr. Downs. I am not — not food fish, but I do not consider the 
herring in a class with the food fish. I consider him in the class we 
have of bunkers, sharks, and dogfish, because it has no commercial 

43049—14 4 



50 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

value to speak of as a food fish, and yet the bunker is just as good 
eating as tlie herring. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Whether you are in favor or not of using food fish 
as fertihzer, you do not consider herring a food fish ? 

Mr. Downs. I do not — that is, in the class we speak of as food 
fish. I do not consider them in the class of bluefish or weakfish, 
spots or perch, and that character of fish, but I do say there is no 
great diminution in the number of those fish. I have not got the 
two bills mixed. I know the one you speak of, and that is the one I 
am to speak on to-morrow. I am more particularly interested in 
that other one. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. FIELD, BOSTON, MASS., 
COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES AND GAME. 

Dr. Field. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, while I 
am in favor of the general proposition that food fish should not be 
captured expressly for the purpose of use as fertilizer, I believe that 
some provision should be made whereby fish, which under the present 
relatively crude and incoordmated conditions of capturing and dis- 
tributing fish, are by circumstances rendered unfit for food, should 
stOl be available for use as fertilizer. I am in favor of preventing 
so far as possible, the deliberate and systematic takmg of valuable 
food fish for fertilizer purposes, and am strongly in favor of any legis- 
lation which will make possible the utilization for fertilizer and oil, 
those species of fish such as the dogfish, sharks, and the other species 
enumerated in this bill, which are of little value as food for the 
people, but which destroy in the aggregate an enormous quantity of 
valuable fish, and thus do an incalculable injury to the commercial 
fisheries. 

The one point which has not thus far been brought out is the 
important fact that apart from the value of the adult alewives taken 
in the spring on the way to the spawning beds, the small alewives 
and herring are of very great value to the sea fishermen from the fact 
that, coming out from the streams and estuaries, they attract to our 
shores large quantities of bluefish, striped bass, weakfish, and other 
species of valuable fish upon which the market depends for its supply. 
For this reason the supply of herrmg of aU species, particularly the 
young, should be conserved very carefully for the benefit they confer 
upon fishermen and upon the ultimate consumer m making possible 
other valuable fisheries. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. JONES, REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. 

Mr. Covington. The committee will be glad to hear from Mr. 
Jones now. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that I did not have 
the opportunity of hearmg the author of this bill, and the other 
gentlemen who spoke in favor of it this morning. I was informed that 
the committee would not commence the hearings until 2 o'clock in 
the day, and therefore I went to see my doctor this morning, and 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 51 

when I returned to my office I found that the hearings had been 
going on for some time. So that I have heard very little of what has 
been said in favor of the passage of this bill. 

Mr. Gardner, of Massachusetts, said he did not know whether this 
bill was constitutional or not, but that if so, its operation should be 
confined to the Chesapeake Bay. I would like to go a Httle further, 
and to suggest that its operation be confined strictly to such waters 
as are wholly within the territorial jurisdiction oi the State of 
Maryland. Virginia has already passed a law prohibitmg the catching 
of herrmg to be manufactured into fertilizer and oil, and therefore 
there is no need for Federal legislation upon this subject in Virginia, 
even granting the constitutionality of such legislation. 

So, if my colleague, Mr. Linthicum, wants to prevent the use of 
herring for fertilizer purposes, it seems to me that the thing for him 
to do is to apply to the legislature of Maryland and have his State 
cooperate with Virginia by passing a law prohibitmg the catching 
of herring in Maryland waters for other than food purposes. Such a 
law would moreover have the advantage of being free from constitu- 
tional objections, which the bill of which he is the patron does not 
possess. 

Mr. Linthicum. May I ask you a question there ? 

Mr. Jones. You can, if you desire to. 

Mr. Linthicum. You state that you would recommend that it be 
confined to the waters of Maryland, and that the legislature pass an 
act upon the subject. Do you not realize that the legislature can 
not pass an act which ])rohibits the fishermen from catching herring 
and selling them in your State for fertilizer ? 

Mr. Jones. No; I do not. 

Mr. Linthicum. You do not? 

Mr. Jones. No, sir; I do not. But that is not the question here. 
Mr. Chairman, I am thoroughly in accord with what is stated to be 
the object of this bill. I am opposed personally — as are the people 
of my State — to the manufacturing of food fish into fertiUzer and oil, 
and we have a statute which prevents it. And yet it is nevertheless 
true, as has been stated here, that frequently herring are so numerous 
in the waters of Chesapeake Bay, and so many of them are caught 
that the herring packers can not handle them and consequently they 
must either be sold to the fish factories or thrown as dead fish into 
the bay. The herring packers sell their herring in advance, and 
when they have put up as many as they think they can dispose of, 
they cease packing them, and the fishermen who supply them must 
then sell what they have in- their boats to the factories or throw them 
into the bay. While this is unquestionably true, most of the men- 
haden fishermen realizing the existence of the prejudice against con- 
verting any food fish into fetihzert, petitioned the Legislature of 
Virginia to prohibit it by law. 

But, Mr. Chairman, my chief objection to this bill is that it seeks, 
in an indirect and roundabout way, to invade the rights of the vari- 
ous States of the Union. It seeks to accomplish in an indirect way 
what can not be done directly. I think it mil be admitted by every 
man who has given any thought to the subject — anyone who has 
read the decisions of the courts of the United States bearing upon 
it — that the States have the absolute right to control and manage 



52 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 

the fisheries within the Hmits of their respective jurisdictions. I do 
not think there can be any doubt as to the correctness of this propo- 
sition. There is an unbroken hue of decisions of the courts of the 
United States from the foundation of the Government down to this 
time which has settled this question so far as it is possible for the 
courts to settle anything. The gentleman who introduced this bill 
reaUzed that this was true, and so he is attempting, as I have said, 
to do in an indirect and roundabout way what he can not possibly 
do in a direct way. It is this that I seriously object to. I object to 
the invasion of the constitutional rights of the people of my State, 
and the fact that tliis invasion is by indirect methods does not make 
it less obnoxious to me. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. Did you not vote for the migratory-birds bill ? 

Mr. Covington. That is not a proper inquiry. 

Mr. Jones. If authority be needed in support of my contention, I 
will gladly furnish it in abundance, and I suggest to the author of 
this bill that he read the case of Smith v. Maryland, a case that went 
to the Supreme Court of the United States from his own State. He 
will find in that decision ample confirmation of my contention. I 
also commend to him the opinion of Chief Justice Waite in the case 
of McCready v. Virginia (94 U. S.). 

It is not mthin the power of Congress to prohibit the catching of 
herring in the waters of the various States by the citizens of those 
States, and yet this bill seeks to accomplish this very thing indirectly; 
it seeks to do it by destroying the market for these fish. Under this 
bill the products of herring caught in the waters of Maryland, for 
instance, can be lawfully sold in Maryland but not in Virginia. It 
is only when they become the subjects of interstate commerce that 
the bill attempts to reach and control them, and yet the obvious — 
yes, the avowed — purpose of this bill is to prevent the catching, not 
the shipment and sale, of herring for fertilizer purposes. The object 
of this bill is not to protect the people of the interior States from the 
introduction into those States from the seaboard States of fertilizer 
and oil injurious to the public good or the public health. That is not 
the object. It is to prevent the catching in Maryland, or in any other 
State, of herring for fertilizer purposes. Congress has no power to do 
this by direct legislation, and therefore it is asked to do so in this 
covert and disguised way. 

This is what I most object to. It is not an honest, fair, square, 
and open way of m-eeting this question. At the same time I wish it 
distinctly understood, Mr. Chairman, that my State does not permit 
the catching of herring to be manufactured into fertilizer and oil 
and if the patron of this bill will but induce his State to follow the 
example set by mine there will be no excuse, even from his stand- 
point, for its passage. I do not agree with some of those who have 
addressed this committee that herring are not food fish. They are 
not only food fish, but they furnish excellent food for those who can 
not buy the more expensive varieties of fish. 

I will not take up the time of the committee to discuss the other 
sections of this bill — those that impose new duties upon the Secre- 
tary of Commerce. I think the Federal Government has enough to 
do now, and that the powers of Congress should be confined within 
the sphere prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. 



TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOR FERTILIZER. 53 

I repeat that the proposition embodied in this bill is not only 
unconstitutional, but that there are no conditions which would jus- 
tify its passage, even were it free from constitutional objections. I 
represent, I may say, the district in the United States in which more 
fertilizer and oil are manufactured than any other district in the 
United States, but I am not opposing this legislation chiefly because 
it would injuriously affect my constituents. I oppose it because it 
is vicious in principle. I regard it as dishonest, and I know it is 
not direct, and that it is an attempt to do in a roundabout and 
improper way what can not be done in a straightforward, open, and 
honest way. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I would like to ask you a question. I want to 
say in the first place that I am not trying to enforce or trying to put 
into execution any legislation that is not honest, square, and above- 
board. 

Mr. Jones. I do not mean to convey the idea, Mr. Linthicum, that 
you would do anything dishonest, but I do mean to say that this 
character of legislation is, in my judgment, an attempt to evade the 
provisions of the Constitution, to invade the rights of the States and 
to do in an indirect way and romidabout way that which is not 
justifiable. 

Mr. Linthicum. You were at the hearing before the Secretaiy of 
Commerce some time ago ? 

Mr. Jones. I was. 

Mr. Linthicum. Did you not hear Mr. Lee, the fish commissioner 
of your State, say they were not enforcing the law as to herring in 
Virginia ? 

Mr. Jones. I can not remember that I did. He may have said it, 
but if so, it seems to me that it was and admission on the part of the 
chaiiman of the commission of fisheries of my State that seriously 
reflected upon himself. I do not know that he made any such 
admission. 

Mr. Linthicum. That is my recollection of it. He may have 
referred to the herring from Maryland and not from Virginia. 

Mr. Jones. I have no recollection that he made a statement that 
would reflect so seriously upon the efficiency of his administration 
of our fishing laws. 

Mr. Linthicum. You represent the district in which most of these 
fish factories are located, do you not? 

Mr. Jones. I do. 

Mr. Linthicum. Do you know anything about how many herring 
they use in them ; is there any data that you can give us upon that 
subject? 

Mr. Jones. I can not. I know that before the passage of the pro- 
hibitive statute of which I have spoken a few factories purchased 
from the pound-net fishermen their surplus catch of herring. This 
was after the packing concerns had been fully suppHed. These fish 
were dead and could then only be utilized by the menhaden factories. 
Many of the factories, especiaUy the larger ones, did not buy herring. 
In order to utilize the herring the factories were obhged to operate 
their factories in advance of the opening of the menhaden season, and 
this was expensive. Wlien it was discovered that herring were being 
bought in some considerable quantities by the factories the menhaden 



54 TO PREVENT THE USE OF FISH FOE FERTILIZER. 

fishermeji themselves asked for the passage of the Virginia law, of 
which I have spoken. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I desire to ask just one more question. Mr. Jones, 
you stated in your statement that they were not allowed to catch 
them for fertilizer purposes. What do the fishermen do with their 
surplus ; how do they arrange it, do you know ? 

Mr. Jones. I do not know what they do with them now. It may 
be that they carry some of them into your State and sell them there. 
Ifou have no law on the subject. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. We have not any factories. 

Mr. Jones., You have at least one. I imagine that the people who 
are engaged in the pound-net business stop catching herring when 
they see they can no longer sell them to the packers. They doubtless 
raise their nets and allow the fish to escape — when they have them in 
their boats and can not sell them there is nothing left them but to 
throw them into the bay. They probably exercise more foresight 
now than they did when they could sell their surplus catch to the 
factories. 

Mr, EscH. Does Mr. Green, of Massachusetts, want to be heard ? 

Mr. Green. I do not care to be heard. 

Mr. Covington. If there are no other parties who desire to be 
heard, the committee will adjourn. 

Mr. LiNTHicuM. I do not care to be heard upon the merits of the 
bill. I came here on the constitutional side of it and will discuss 
that in the future. 

(The committee thereupon adjourned.) 



X 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 762 109 



